| People v Valencia-Noralez |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 03389 [127 AD3d 1113] |
| April 22, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Keller Valencia-Noralez, Appellant. |
Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (Kirk R. Brandt of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Glenn Green of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County(Kahn, J.), rendered October 28, 2011, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree,upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved forappellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]). In anyevent, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see Peoplev Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility toconduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunityto view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People vMateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495[1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was notagainst the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant contends that the admission into evidence of a photograph taken afterhis arrest was improper. However, the defendant has failed to preserve this contention forappellate review, as no objection was made to the admission of the photograph(see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19-21 [1995];People v Fray, 258 AD2d 529, 529-530 [1999]). In any event, the photographwas properly admitted into evidence, as it was relevant under the circumstances and didnot prejudice the defendant (see People v Logan, 25 NY2d 184, 195-196 [1969];People v Hicks, 84 AD3d1402, 1403 [2011]).
The defendant also failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that theCounty Court improperly permitted a sexual assault nurse examiner to testify that herobservations of the complainant's injuries were consistent with injuries that could becaused by fingernails similar to those of the defendant (see CPL 470.05 [2];People v Gray, 86 NY2d at 19-21). In any event, the testimony did not, as thedefendant urges, improperly bolster the complainant's credibility or impinge upon thejury's right to determine his guilt (see People v Ocampo, 52 AD3d 741, 742 [2008]; People v Rogers, 8 AD3d888, 892 [2004]; People v Harris, 249 AD2d 775 [1998]).
[*2] The sentence imposed was not excessive (seePeople v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Eng, P.J., Austin, Cohen and Barros, JJ.,concur.