People v Surin
2010 NY Slip Op 00886 [70 AD3d 731]
February 2, 2010
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, March 31, 2010


The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Dieuvais Surin, Appellant.

[*1]Blanch Law Firm, P.C., New York, N.Y. (Edward McQuat and Clara Schauman ofcounsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Diane R. Eisnerof counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DelGiudice, J.), rendered September 29, 2008, convicting him of criminal sexual act in the seconddegree (13 counts) and sexual abuse in the second degree (9 counts), upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court,Kings County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the evidence (seeCPL 470.15 [5]; People vDanielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury'sopportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People vMateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People vBleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied thatthe verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]).

To the extent the defendant's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are based uponmatter dehors the record, they may not be reviewed on direct appeal (see People v Bigelow, 68 AD3d1127 [2009]; People vBallinger, 62 AD3d 895 [2009]; People v Zimmerman, 309 AD2d 824, 824-825[2003]; People v Rosas, 306 AD2d 91, 92 [2003]). Insofar as we are able to review thoseclaims, defense counsel provided the defendant with meaningful representation (see People vBenevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705, 709 [1988]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in anyevent, are without merit. Dillon, J.P., Covello, Miller and Chambers, JJ., concur.


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.