| People v Amaya |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 01278 [103 AD3d 907] |
| February 27, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Lucio Amaya, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Karla Lato of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County(Hinrichs, J.), rendered January 4, 2011, convicting him of criminal sexual act in thesecond degree, sexual abuse in the second degree, sexual abuse in the third degree, andendangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the trial court did not improperly limit thecross-examination of the complainant. The scope of cross-examination rests largely inthe sound discretion of the trial court (see People v Mandel, 48 NY2d 952[1979], cert denied 446 US 949 [1980]; People v Abney, 193 AD2d 608[1993]; People v Holmes, 138 AD2d 630 [1988]), and we conclude that the courtdid not improvidently exercise its discretion. Further, the testimony of the People'switnesses did not improperly inferentially bolster the complainant's accusations. Thetestimony was properly admitted not for its truth but, rather, to explain police actions andthe sequence of events leading to the defendant's arrest (see People v Tosca, 98NY2d 660 [2002]; People vChandler, 59 AD3d 562 [2009]; People v Wright, 54 AD3d 695 [2008]).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt, of criminal sexual act in the second degree(see Penal Law § 130.45 [1]), sexual abuse in the second degree(see Penal Law § 130.60), sexual abuse in the third degree (seePenal Law § 130.55), and endangering the welfare of a minor (see PenalLaw § 260.10 [1]). In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independentreview of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to viewthe witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People vBleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we aresatisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]). Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.