| People v Kouao |
| 2019 NY Slip Op 08079 [177 AD3d 1335] |
| November 8, 2019 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Franck A. Kouao, Appellant. |
Easton Thompson Kasperek Shiffrin LLP, Rochester (Brian Shiffrin of counsel), fordefendant-appellant.
Sandra Doorley, District Attorney, Rochester (Scott Myles of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Sam L. Valleriani, J.),rendered March 22, 2018. The judgment convicted defendant, after a nonjury trial, ofsexual abuse in the first degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimouslyaffirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him, after a nonjury trial, ofsexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65 [1]), defendantcontends that the evidence is not legally sufficient to support the conviction and that theverdict is against the weight of the evidence with respect to the sexual contact element ofthat crime. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People, as we must ona sufficiency challenge (seePeople v Delamota, 18 NY3d 107, 113 [2011]), we conclude that the evidenceis legally sufficient (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).The victim testified that she felt defendant's penis pressing against her through herclothing as he lay on top of her, which is sufficient to establish that element of the crime(see generally People v Clark, 181 AD2d 1028, 1029 [4th Dept 1992], lvdenied 80 NY2d 895 [1992]; People v Boykin, 127 AD2d 1004, 1004 [4thDept 1987], lv denied 69 NY2d 1001 [1987]). Furthermore, viewing the evidencein light of the elements of the crime in this nonjury trial (see People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of theevidence with respect to the element of sexual contact (see generally Bleakley, 69NY2d at 495). " 'In a bench trial, no less than a jury trial, the resolution ofcredibility issues by the trier of fact and its determination of the weight to be accordedthe evidence presented are entitled to great deference' " (People v McCoy, 100 AD3d1422, 1422 [4th Dept 2012]; see People v Hutchings, 142 AD3d 1292, 1293 [4th Dept2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1124 [2016]).
The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. We have reviewed defendant's remainingcontention and we conclude that it does not require reversal or modification of thejudgment. Present—Smith, J.P., Peradotto, DeJoseph, NeMoyer and Winslow,JJ.