People v Cardona
2009 NY Slip Op 01853 [60 AD3d 493]
March 17, 2009
Appellate Division, First Department
As corrected through Wednesday, May 6, 2009


The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Victor Cardona, Appellant.

[*1]Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Martin M. Lucente of counsel), forappellant.

Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Sara M. Zausmer of counsel), forrespondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered August 8, 2006,convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of rape in the second degree, andsentencing him to consecutive terms of 21/3 to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting evidence that, in an incident thatoccurred shortly before the charged rapes, defendant showed pornographic pictures to the13-year-old victim. This evidence was properly admitted to demonstrate defendant's pattern ofincreasingly serious sexual conduct toward the victim leading up to the charged crimes (see People v Rosario, 34 AD3d370 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 949 [2007]). The evidence constituted highlyprobative background information that tended to explain the relationship between defendant andthe victim and place the events in question in a believable context (see People v Dorm, 12 NY3d 16[2009]). We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining arguments relating to thisevidence.

The court's Sandoval ruling, which permitted the People to elicit defendant's priorsexual abuse conviction without mentioning any underlying facts, balanced the appropriatefactors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203[2002]; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292 [1983]; People v Rosado, 53 AD3d 455 [2008], lv denied 11NY3d 835 [2008]).

The court properly permitted the People to rebut a claim of recent fabrication by introducinga prior consistent statement made by the victim, since this statement predated a particular motiveto falsify that had been asserted by the defense (see People v McDaniel, 81 [*2]NY2d 10, 18 [1993]; People v Whitley, 14 AD3d 403, 406 [2005], lv denied 4NY3d 892 [2005]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias,Gonzalez, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.