| People v Rodriguez |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 00393 [91 AD3d 797] |
| Jnury 17, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Roberto Lino Rodriguez, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Victor Barall, andDavid O. Leiwant of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D'Emic, J.),rendered October 20, 2004, convicting him of course of sexual conduct against a child in the firstdegree and sodomy in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
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 People v Carfora, 69 AD3d 751 [2010]; People v Staropoli, 49 AD3d 568[2008]; People v Hendrickson, 34AD3d 495 [2006]; People vClarke, 7 AD3d 537 [2004]; People v Negrette, 218 AD2d 751 [1995];People v Califano, 216 AD2d 574 [1995]; cf. People v Diaz, 85 AD3d 1047 [2011]) and, in any event, iswithout merit (see People v Spicola,16 NY3d 441 [2011], cert denied 565 US —, 132 S Ct 400 [2011]; Peoplev Carroll, 95 NY2d 375 [2000]).
The defendant's contentions that the trial court erred in failing to give a limiting instruction tothe jury regarding its use of evidence of his prior convictions and uncharged crimes, and infailing to instruct the jury that it may consider the complainant's delay in reporting the incident inassessing credibility, are unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant neither requestedsuch instructions nor objected to the charge as given (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Willis, 69 AD3d 966[2010]). In any event, any error resulting from the alleged failure of the trial court to give certaininstructions to the jury was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant'sguilt, and no significant probability that the error contributed to his convictions (see People vCrimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]; People v Giuca, 58 AD3d 750 [2009]).
The defendant's contention that the integrity of the grand jury proceedings was impaired bythe prosecutor's failure to comply with CPL 190.32 (5) (a) is without merit (see People vHuston, 88 NY2d 400 [1996]). Skelos, J.P., Hall, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.