| People v Pierre |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 01970 [126 AD3d 817] |
| March 11, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Sauveur Pierre, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Denise A. Corsí of counsel), forappellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and RuthE. Ross of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Dowling, J.), rendered June 29, 2011, convicting him of sexual abuse in the third degree(two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidentlyexercise its discretion in denying his motion to sever the charges pertaining to the twocomplaining witnesses, as the defendant failed to show "in the interest of justice and forgood cause" that the charges should be tried separately (CPL 200.20 [3]). The fact thatboth incidents involved sexual offenses does not provide a sufficient basis to requireseverance (see People v Cox, 298 AD2d 461 [2002]; People v Rivera,186 AD2d 594, 595 [1992]).
In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of theevidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we neverthelessaccord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear thetestimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004];People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Moreover, under thecircumstances of this case, we decline to "assume the basis for any impliedinconsistencies in mixed jury verdicts" (People v Rayam, 94 NY2d 557, 563[2000]; see People vHouston, 73 AD3d 1081, 1082 [2010]). 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 defendant failed to establish that he was deprived of the effective assistance ofcounsel under either the United States Constitution or the New York Constitution(see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]; People v Benevento,91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]).
The defendant's contention that certain comments the prosecutor made during heropening statement and in summation deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved forappellate review and, in any event, without merit (see People v Marcus, 112 AD3d 652, 653 [2013]; People v Rogers, 92 AD3d903, 904 [2012]).
[*2] The defendant'sremaining contention is without merit. Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Chambers and Roman, JJ.,concur.