| People v Bevans |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 03868 [84 AD3d 827] |
| May 3, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Marriyet Bevans, Appellant. |
—[*1] Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Lois Cullen Valerio and RichardLongworth Hecht of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Wetzel,J.), rendered October 13, 2009, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree (three counts)and unlawful imprisonment in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictionsof sexual abuse in the first degree under counts five and six of the indictment is unpreserved forappellate review (see People vHawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the lightmost favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we findthat it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of those counts beyond a reasonabledoubt. Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied thatthe verdict of guilt on those counts was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633[2006]).
The defendant's contention that certain testimony constituted improper bolstering isunpreserved for appellate review (seePeople v Stalter, 77 AD3d 776, 776-777 [2010]; People v Stearns, 72 AD3d 1214, 1218 [2010]; People v Santiago, 16 AD3d 600[2005]). In any event, the testimony was properly admitted under the prompt outcry exception tothe hearsay rule, and it did not exceed the allowable level of detail (see People vMcDaniel, 81 NY2d 10, 16-18 [1993]; People v Stalter, 77 AD3d at 777; People v Bernardez, 63 AD3d1174, 1175 [2009]; People v Salazar, 234 AD2d 322, 323 [1996]).
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, without merit. Dillon, J.P., Covello, Eng and Chambers, JJ., concur.