| People v Okonkwo |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 08329 [167 AD3d 657] |
| December 5, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Charles Okonkwo, Jr., Appellant. |
Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, NY (Kirk R. Brandt of counsel), for appellant.
Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Marion Tang of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Mark D.Cohen, J.), rendered September 16, 2016, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degreeand assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The qualification of a witness to testify as an expert is a matter that rests in the sounddiscretion of the trial court, and the court's determination should not be disturbed on appeal in theabsence of a serious mistake, an error of law, or an improvident exercise of discretion (seeMeiselman v Crown Hgts. Hosp., 285 NY 389, 398-399 [1941]; Felicia v Boro Crescent Corp., 105AD3d 697, 698 [2013]; Riccio vNHT Owners, LLC, 79 AD3d 998 [2010]; de Hernandez v Lutheran Med. Ctr., 46 AD3d 517 [2007]; Steinbuch v Stern, 2 AD3d 709,710 [2003]). "The competence of an expert in a particular subject may derive from longobservation and real world experience, and is not dependent upon formal training or attainmentof an academic degree in the subject" (Miele v American Tobacco Co., 2 AD3d 799, 802 [2003]; seeCaprara v Chrysler Corp., 52 NY2d 114, 121 [1981]; Meiselman v Crown Hgts.Hosp., 285 NY at 398; Felicia v Boro Crescent Corp., 105 AD3d at 698; McLambv Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth., 139 AD2d 572, 573 [1988]). Here, the County Courtdid not improvidently exercise its discretion in allowing the People's witness to testify as anexpert on the subject of the traumatic injuries that the complainant suffered and the causes ofthose injuries. Moreover, the court providently exercised its discretion in determining theadmissibility and scope of the expert's testimony (see People v Williams, 20 NY3d 579, 584 [2013]; People vLee, 96 NY2d 157, 162 [2001]; People v Hill, 85 NY2d 256, 261 [1995]; DeLong v County of Erie, 60 NY2d 296, 307 [1983]), which, here, was helpful in clarifyingissues beyond the ken of the typical juror (see People v Diaz, 20 NY3d 569, 575 [2013]; People vWilliams, 20 NY3d at 584; People vRivers, 18 NY3d 222, 228 [2011]; People v Hill, 85 NY2d at 261; De Long vCounty of Erie, 60 NY2d at 307).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Austin, J.P., Roman, Sgroi and LaSalle, JJ., concur.