| People v Dorn |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 04429 [140 AD3d 898] |
| June 8, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Joseph Dorn, Appellant. |
Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, NY (Louis E. Mazzola of counsel), forappellant.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Marcia R. Kucera of counsel),for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County(Toomey, J.), rendered March 11, 2014, convicting him of rape in the third degree, upona 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]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the record as a whole demonstrates that hereceived effective assistance of counsel under both federal and state constitutionalstandards (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]; People vBenevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147[1981]).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of his constitutional right to presenta defense and to confront the prosecution's witnesses against him because certain of thecourt's rulings limited his cross-examination of the complainant is unpreserved forappellate review (see People vRamsundar, 138 AD3d 892 [2016]; People v Simmons, 106 AD3d 1115, 1116 [2013]). In anyevent, any error in connection with the scope of cross-examination was harmless (seePeople v Allen, 50 NY2d 898, 899 [1980]; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d230, 237 [1975]; People v Chestnut, 237 AD2d 528 [1997]; People vBatista, 113 AD2d 890, 892-893 [1985]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]).
[*2] The defendant's remainingcontentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.Leventhal, J.P., Chambers, Hinds-Radix and Connolly, JJ., concur.