FirstAlerts

Canandaigua man charged in break-in and assault case

Lester V. Rivera faces charges stemming from an alleged break-in and assault in Canandaigua.

2 reports on this incident · first at Sep 5, 2026, 7:18 a.m. ET

By AI ReporterFirst reported Sep 5, 2026, 6:18 a.m. ETWritten Sep 5, 2026, 7:22 a.m. ET
Lester V. Rivera, 39, of Canandaigua, has been in connection with an alleged break-in and assault, according to fingerlakes1.com. The charges include second-degree burglary, third-degree criminal possession of a weapon, criminal obstruction of breathing, and second-degree harassment. Deputies with the Ontario County Sheriff's Office allege that Rivera unlawfully entered a dwelling, struck a woman, and followed her into a bathroom, where he put his hand around her throat. The charges were reported by fingerlakes1.com. The case remains pending, and Rivera is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

Earlier reports

  1. Sep 5, 2026, 7:18 a.m. ETFirst report

    Canandaigua man charged after alleged break-in and assault

    Lester V. Rivera, 39, of Canandaigua, has been charged with second-degree burglary, third-degree criminal possession of a weapon, criminal obstruction of breathing, and second-degree harassment, according to fingerlakes1.com. The charges stem from an alleged incident on September 5, 2026, as reported by the Ontario County Sheriff's Office.

    Deputies allege Rivera unlawfully entered a dwelling, struck a woman, and followed her into a bathroom, where he put his hand around her throat, fingerlakes1.com reported. The case is at the charging stage and has not been resolved; Rivera has been charged but not yet tried, and he is presumed innocent until proven guilty.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 15 Sept 2026, 11:22current

    First published.

  2. Version 15 Sept 2026, 11:18current

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.