| People v Carfora |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 00274 [69 AD3d 751] |
| January 12, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Richard Carfora, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Grazia DiVincenzo of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (R.Doyle, J.), rendered June 13, 2006, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree (twocounts) and endangering the welfare of a child (two counts) under indictment No. 1225-05, and(2) a judgment of the same court, also rendered June 13, 2006, convicting him of criminal sexualact in the first degree (two counts), sexual abuse in the first degree (six counts), and endangeringthe welfare of a child (three counts) under indictment No. 1280-05, after a consolidated nonjurytrial, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the Supreme Courterred in admitting certain testimony of the mothers of the complaining witnesses (seeCPL 470.05 [2]; People v Leveille,12 AD3d 533 [2004]). In any event, the court properly admitted testimony of themothers as a "prompt outcry" of sexual abuse (see People v Shelton, 1 NY3d 614 [2004]; People v Leveille,12 AD3d at 533). The court also properly admitted into evidence testimony of the mothersregarding changes in the behavior of the victims following the abuse (see People v Groff,71 NY2d 101, 110 [1987]; People v Cordero, 257 AD2d 372, 376 [1999]; Peoplev Badia, 163 AD2d 4, 6 [1990]).
The defendant's contention that the testimony of the People's expert concerning child sexualabuse accommodation syndrome impermissibly bolstered the testimony of the complainingwitnesses is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, there isno merit to the contention (see People v Carroll, 95 NY2d 375, 387 [2000]; People vTaylor, 75 NY2d 277, 288 [1990]; People v Staropoli, 49 AD3d 568 [2008]).
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support hisconvictions is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484,492 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution(see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient toestablish the defendant's guilt beyond a [*2]reasonable doubt.Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that theverdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those contained in his supplemental pro sebrief, are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, are without merit. Dillon, J.P.,Florio, Hall and Sgroi, JJ., concur.