| People v Shaulov |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 04362 [107 AD3d 829] |
| June 12, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Boris Shaulov, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Anthea H.Bruffee, and Bruce Alderman of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Guzman, J.), rendered March 27, 2012, convicting him of rape in the third degree (twocounts), criminal sexual act in the third degree, endangering the welfare of a child, andsexual abuse in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant received the effective assistance of counsel under both the stateconstitutional standard (seePeople v Williams, 8 NY3d 854, 855-856 [2007]; People v Caban, 5 NY3d143, 152 [2005]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; Peoplev Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; People v West, 105 AD3d 781 [2013]) and the federalconstitutional standard (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]).
The defendant's contention that his right to confrontation was violated (seeCrawford v Washington, 541 US 36 [2004]) is not preserved for appellate review(see People v Fleming, 70 NY2d 947 [1988]; People v Marino, 21 AD3d 430, 431 [2005]; see alsoPeople v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 400 [1981]) and, in any event, is without merit(see Davis v Washington, 547 US 813, 821 [2006]; Crawford vWashington, 541 US at 53-54).
"The decision to declare a mistrial rests within the sound discretion of the trial court,which is in the best position to determine if this drastic remedy is truly necessary toprotect the defendant's right to a fair trial" (People v Way, 69 AD3d 964, 965 [2010]). Here, theSupreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant'smotion for a mistrial on the ground of unfair surprise.
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (seeCPL 470.05 [2]; People v Galloway, 54 NY2d at 400; People v Malave, 7 AD3d542 [2004]) and, in any event, are without merit (see People v Spicola, 16 NY3d 441, 462-463, 465 [2011];People v Carroll, 95 NY2d 375, 387 [2000]; People v Rosario, 100 AD3d 660 [2012]; People v Terry, 85 AD3d1485, 1488 [2011]). Rivera, J.P., Hall, Cohen and Miller, JJ., concur.