| People v Honghirun |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 08758 [133 AD3d 882] |
| November 25, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Nirun Honghirun, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Patricia Pazner of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano,Johnnette Traill, Daniel Bresnahan, and Deborah E. Wassel of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Buchter, J.), rendered June 7, 2012, convicting him of course of sexual conduct againsta child in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claim that testimony from three witnesses, the complainant, thecomplainant's school counselor, and the arresting police officer did not fall within thescope of the prompt outcry exception to the hearsay rule (see People v McDaniel,81 NY2d 10, 16-17 [1993]), is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendantfailed to object to the testimony of which he now complains (see CPL 470.05 [2];People v Stuckey, 50 AD3d447, 448 [2008]; People vPhillips, 45 AD3d 702, 702 [2007]; People v Leveille, 12 AD3d 533, 533 [2004]). Moreover,this argument was waived in light of the fact that the defense elicited the same testimonyon cross-examination (seePeople v Stalter, 77 AD3d 776, 776-777 [2010]; People v Brown, 57 AD3d1461, 1462 [2008]; Peoplev Grant, 54 AD3d 967, 967 [2008]; People v Bryan, 50 AD3d 1049, 1050-1051 [2008]).
The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, as the recordreveals that defense counsel provided meaningful representation (see People vBenevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137,146, 147 [1981]; People vThomas, 131 AD3d 712, 713 [2015]).
The defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to support hisconviction and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. Viewing theevidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guiltbeyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct anindependent review of the weight of the evidence (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]), wenevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hearthe testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 420[2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing therecord here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of theevidence (see People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633, 645-646 [2006]).
[*2] The sentence imposed was not excessive (seePeople v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 85-86 [1982]).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in anyevent, without merit. Leventhal, J.P., Cohen, Duffy and LaSalle, JJ., concur.