| People v Abuziyad |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 00988 [136 AD3d 837] |
| February 10, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Rami Abuziyad, Appellant. |
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, NY (Shane Tela of counsel), for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, SholomJ. Twersky, and Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP [Gerald M. Moody, Jr.], of counsel),for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Ozzi, J.), rendered November 15, 2012, convicting him of criminal possession of stolenproperty in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling (seePeople v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]) is only partially preserved for appellatereview (see People vMantock, 117 AD3d 753, 754 [2014]; People v McClain, 61 AD3d 703, 704 [2009]) and, in anyevent, is without merit.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that his right toconfrontation (see US Const Sixth Amend) was violated when two DNA profilereports and a DNA comparison chart generated by the Office of the Chief MedicalExaminer of the City of New York (hereinafter the OCME) were admitted into evidencethrough the testimony of a DNA analyst employed by the OCME. In any event, thedefendant's contention is without merit. The two DNA profile reports were not"testimonial" in nature (Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36, 51-52 [2004])because they consisted of "merely raw data that, standing alone, did not link thedefendant to the crime" (Peoplev Pitre, 108 AD3d 643, 644 [2013]; see People v Thompson, 70 AD3d 866, 866-867 [2010];People v Dail, 69 AD3d873, 875 [2010]). Accordingly, the admission of these DNA profile reports throughthe testimony of an OCME analyst did not violate the defendant's right to confrontation(see People v Pitre, 108 AD3d at 644; People v Thompson, 70 AD3d at866-867). Moreover, the defendant's right to confrontation also was not violated by theadmission of the DNA comparison chart. While the chart directly linked the defendant toDNA evidence recovered at the crime scene, the OCME analyst who created the DNAprofiles contained in the chart testified and was subject to cross-examination at trial (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d332, 340 [2009]).
Finally, defense counsel's failure to object to the admission of the DNA profilereports and DNA comparison chart did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel(see People v Hampton, 81AD3d 974, 975 [2011]). Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.