| People v Britton |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 04727 [140 AD3d 975] |
| June 15, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Quinn Britton, Appellant. |
Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, NY (John B. Latella and Denise A. Corsí ofcounsel), for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Rhea A.Grob, and Claibourne Henry of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DelGiudice, J.), rendered November 19, 2013, convicting him of sexual abuse in the seconddegree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence supporting hisconviction is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In anyevent, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see Peoplev Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient toestablish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling ourresponsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence(see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we neverthelessaccord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony,and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; Peoplev Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we aresatisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the fact that the jury acquittedhim of other charges does not warrant a different conclusion (see People vRayam, 94 NY2d 557 [2000]).
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in permitting the prosecutionto elicit evidence that approximately one year before the charged crimes, the defendantexposed his penis to the complainant. This evidence provided relevant backgroundinformation on the nature of the defendant's relationship with the complainant, and theprobative value of the evidence outweighed any prejudice to the defendant (see People v Leeson, 12 NY3d823, 826-827 [2009]; People v Dorm, 12 NY3d 16, 19 [2009]; People v Maxey, 129 AD3d1664 [2015]; People vLeonard, 129 AD3d 1592, 1595 [2015], lv granted 26 NY3d 1090[2015]; People v Kamp, 129AD3d 1339, 1340 [2015]; People v Washington, 122 AD3d 1406, 1408 [2014]; People v Nash, 87 AD3d757, 758-759 [2011]). Moreover, the court's instruction to the jury regarding use ofthis evidence limited any potential prejudice to the defendant (see People v Gopaul, 112AD3d 964, 965 [2013];People v Khan, 88 AD3d 1014, 1015 [2011]).
[*2] Finally, the defendant's contention that the SupremeCourt improperly modified its initial Sandoval ruling (see People vSandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]) is unpreserved for appellate review. In any event,the contention is without merit. Rivera, J.P., Austin, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.