| People v Staropoli |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 01981 [49 AD3d 568] |
| March 4, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v MarkStaropoli, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas P. Zugibe, District Attorney, New City, N.Y. (Argiro Kosmetatos of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Resnick,J.), rendered August 30, 2005, convicting him of rape in the third degree (5 counts), criminalsexual act in the third degree (16 counts), sexual abuse in the third degree (17 counts), andendangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the expert's testimony concerning child sexual abuseaccommodation syndrome impermissibly bolstered the testimony of the complainant isunpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, there is no merit tothe contention (see People v Carroll, 95 NY2d 375, 387 [2000]; People v Taylor,75 NY2d 277, 288 [1990]).
The defendant's contentions regarding the disqualification of two prospective jurors arewithout merit. The determination that a prospective juror should be disqualified before voirdire is a matter for the court, and a defendant has no statutory or constitutional right topersonally participate in discussions leading to the court's ruling (see People v Velasco,77 NY2d 469, 473 [1991]). Here, the County Court providently exercised its discretion when,before the voir dire of two prospective jurors and before their panel was sworn to answerquestions truthfully, it directed those two prospective jurors to report back to the Commissionerof Jurors because they were inappropriately dressed (see People v Wilson, 211 AD2d136, 140 [1995], affd 88 NY2d 363 [1996]; cf. People v [*2]Thorpe, 223 AD2d 739, 740-741 [1996]).
The defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, to the extent that it is premised onhis attorney's failure to retain and call an expert witness, involves matter dehors the record and,thus, is not properly before us on this direct appeal from the judgment (see People v Farrier, 45 AD3d 603[2007]; People v Zimmerman, 309 AD2d 824 [2003]; People v Carlisle, 272AD2d 477 [2000]). The record otherwise fails to support the defendant's claim since itdemonstrates that trial counsel rendered meaningful representation to him (see People vBenevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712-713 [1998]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event,is without merit. Skelos, J.P., Lifson, Santucci and Carni, JJ., concur.