| People v Dumancela |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 01342 [136 AD3d 1053] |
| February 24, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Oscar Dumancela, Appellant. |
Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, NY (Ronald Zapata of counsel), for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, AmyAppelbaum, and Lauren Mendolera [Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP] of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Marrus, J.), rendered March 31, 2009, convicting him of assault in the second degreeand rape in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the prosecutor's summation remarks deprived him of afair trial. This contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Balls, 69 NY2d 641, 642 [1986]; People v Taylor, 120 AD3d519, 520 [2014]; People vSalnave, 41 AD3d 872, 874 [2007]) and, in any event, without merit (see People v Williams, 123AD3d 1152, 1153 [2014]).
The defendant further contends that the People improperly bolstered the victim'stestimony by eliciting evidence that she had told a number of other individuals, includingthe responding police officer and the medical staff in the emergency room where she wasbrought after the incident, that she had been raped by the defendant. However, as thedefendant did not object to any of the evidence, the contentions he now raises areunpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, thechallenged evidence was admissible under the prompt outcry exception, as itcorroborated the victim's allegation that nonconsensual sex took place (see People vMcDaniel, 81 NY2d 10, 18 [1993]; People v Bernardez, 63 AD3d 1174, 1175 [2009]), andstatements to medical providers were relevant to diagnosis and treatment (see People v Spicola, 16 NY3d441, 451 [2011]; People vOrtega, 15 NY3d 610 [2010]).
The defendant's contention that the trial court gave an unbalanced and improper jurycharge is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant failed to raise anyobjections to the charge as given (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Joseph, 114 AD3d878, 879 [2014]; People vCapehart, 61 AD3d 885, 886 [2009]; People v Quinones, 41 AD3d 868 [2007]). In any event, hiscontentions are without merit, as the court's instructions, on the whole, conveyed thecorrect standard to be employed by the jury (see People v Fields, 87 NY2d 821,823 [1995]; People vRomero, 123 AD3d 1147, 1148 [2014]; People v Morris, 120 AD3d 835, 837 [2014]). Rivera, J.P.,Leventhal, Sgroi and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.