| People v Adoms |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 00826 [92 AD3d 450] |
| February 7, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JorgeAdoms, Appellant. |
—[*1]
Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx (Noah J. Chamoy of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert A. Sackett, J.), rendered May 20, 2004,convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of rape in the first and second degrees, rape in the thirddegree (three counts), sexual abuse in the first degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, andsentencing him to an aggregate term of 15 years, unanimously affirmed.
The court properly exercised its discretion in permitting expert testimony relating to childsexual abuse syndrome (CSAS). The expert's testimony provided a possible explanation, beyondthe knowledge of the average juror, for the victim's delay in reporting repeated instances ofsexual abuse occurring over a long period of time (see People v Carroll, 95 NY2d 375,387 [2000]; People v Gilley, 4AD3d 127, 128 [2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 799 [2004]). Regardless of whetherdefendant expressly raised the issue of delayed disclosure, the jury may have been concerned thatthe delay impacted the victim's credibility. Furthermore, the expert did not improperly bolster thevictim's testimony (see People vSpicola, 16 NY3d 441, 465-466 [2011], cert denied 565 US —, 132 S Ct400 [2011]).
Defendant did not preserve his arguments that the victim's explanation of the reasons for herdelayed disclosure obviated any need for expert testimony, or that CSAS is not a scientificallyvalid theory. As alternative holding, we reject those arguments.
Defendant expressly waived his present claim that the court should have instructed the juryon the use of expert testimony (see People v Gonzalez, 99 NY2d 76, 83 [2002]). As analternative holding, we find that the absence of that instruction did not cause defendant anyprejudice. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, DeGrasse, Richter and Abdus-Salaam, JJ.