| People v Salim |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 04584 [96 AD3d 1484] |
| June 8, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rafiq Salim,Appellant. |
—[*1] Rafiq Salim, defendant-appellant pro se. Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Nicholas T. Texido of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Deborah A. Haendiges, J.),rendered April 15, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a nonjury verdict, ofharassment in the second degree and assault in the third degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the lawand a new trial is granted.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a nonjury verdict ofassault in the third degree (Penal Law § 120.00 [1]) and harassment in the second degree(§ 240.26 [1]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that theconviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence (see People v Hines, 97 NY2d56, 61 [2001], rearg denied 97 NY2d 678 [2001]). In any event, that contention lacksmerit (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). In addition, viewingthe evidence in light of the elements of the crimes in this nonjury trial (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d342, 349 [2007]), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence(see Bleakley, 69 NY2d at 495). We further conclude, however, that Supreme Courtabused its discretion in admitting rebuttal evidence concerning defendant's relationship with awoman other than his wife, requiring reversal of the judgment and a new trial. "The general ruleof evidence in this State concerning the impeachment of witnesses with respect to collateralmatters is that 'the cross-examiner is bound by the answers of the witness to questions concerningcollateral matters inquired into solely to affect credibility' " (People v Pavao, 59 NY2d282, 288 [1983]; see People vBellamy, 26 AD3d 638, 641 [2006]). Defendant's extramarital relationship "was not amaterial issue in this case . . . [, and t]he rebuttal testimony served solely to attackdefendant's credibility on a collateral issue" (Bellamy, 26 AD3d at 641).
In view of our decision to reverse, we need not address defendant's remaining contentions,including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief. Present—Smith, J.P., Fahey, Carni,Sconiers and Martoche, JJ.