| People v Marquez |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 02418 [82 AD3d 1123] |
| March 22, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Adalberto Marquez, Appellant. |
—[*1] Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (William C. Milaccio, Lois CullenValerio, and Richard Longworth Hecht of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Neary,J.), rendered August 12, 2009, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree, forcibletouching, and unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposingsentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence in light of,inter alia, certain alleged inconsistencies and other weaknesses in the complainant's testimony,the jury's verdict acquitting the defendant of some of the charged crimes, and the absence of anyforensic evidence supporting the complainant's account of the incident underlying theprosecution. In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of theevidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), wenevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear thetestimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004], certdenied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Uponreviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight ofthe evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant's claim that the first count of the indictment was rendered duplicitous by thecomplainant's testimony has been rendered academic in light of the defendant's acquittal on thatcount and on the other counts related to the first part of the incident (see People vHaberer, 24 AD3d 1283 [2005]). Further, the defendant failed to preserve for appellatereview his remaining claims regarding the testimony about the first part of the incident, inasmuchas he did not raise those claims with specificity before the trial court (see CPL 470.05[2]). In any event, those claims are without merit.
The defendant concedes that he failed to preserve for appellate review his claims regardingthe admission of testimony about the complainant's statements to her mother and to the policeshortly after the incident. In any event, contrary to the defendant's claim, the admission of thistestimony did not deprive him of a fair trial (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]; cf. People vMcDaniel, 81 NY2d 10 [1993]). Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.