| People v Singh |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 00668 [147 AD3d 787] |
| February 1, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Gurmeet Singh, Appellant. |
Aaron M. Rubin, New York, NY, for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Anthea H.Bruffee, and Rebecca L. Visgaitis of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Cyrulnik,J.), rendered May 12, 2014, convicting him of rape in the first degree and kidnapping in thesecond degree as a sexually motivated felony, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not improvidently exercise itsdiscretion in allowing the prosecutor to cross-examine him regarding an uncharged crime thatoccurred after the crimes charged in the subject indictment. The defendant opened the door tosuch proof by creating a misleading impression with his direct testimony (see People vMassie, 2 NY3d 179, 184 [2004]; People v DeCarr, 130 AD3d 1365, 1366-1367 [2015]; People vMorgan, 171 AD2d 698, 699 [1991]). Moreover, jurors are presumed to have followed acourt's limiting instructions, and any prejudicial impact was minimized here by the trial court'ssufficient and repeated instructions that the defendant was not on trial for the incident whichoccurred after the crimes at issue and the evidence related thereto was permitted only to assist thejury in assessing the defendant's credibility (see People v Morris, 21 NY3d 588, 598 [2013]; People v Nealon, 36 AD3d 1076,1078 [2007]).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain alleged prosecutorialmisconduct is not reviewable on direct appeal since it is based upon facts not appearing on theface of the trial record (see People vCraft, 104 AD3d 786, 788 [2013]). This claim may properly be reviewed only in thecontext of a postjudgment motion pursuant to CPL 440.10, which is designed for the purpose ofdeveloping matter dehors the trial record (see People v Craft, 104 AD3d at 788; People v Franklin, 77 AD3d 676[2010]; People v Johnson, 64 AD3d792, 793 [2009]; People v Ransome, 207 AD2d 504, 504 [1994]).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistance of counsel iswithout merit (see People v Ambers,26 NY3d 313, 320 [2015]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]). Therecord as a whole demonstrates that the defendant received effective assistance of counsel underboth the federal and state constitutional standards (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US668, 688 [1984]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d at 712; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d137, 147 [1981]).
[*2] The sentence imposed wasnot excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Rivera, J.P., Roman, Duffy andBrathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.