| People v Love |
| 2020 NY Slip Op 02327 [182 AD3d 561] |
| April 16, 2020 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v James Love, Appellant. |
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (David L. Goodwin of counsel), forappellant.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, JohnnetteTraill, and Roni C. Piplani of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Kenneth C. Holder, J.), rendered April 24, 2017, convicting him of sexual abuse in thefirst degree and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposingsentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
When making its Sandoval ruling (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d371 [1974]), the Supreme Court appropriately balanced the probative value of theproposed inquiry to the issue of the defendant's credibility against the potential prejudiceto the defendant (see People vBetancourt, 106 AD3d 831, 831 [2013]; People v Williams, 24 AD3d 882, 883 [2005]; People vLevy, 290 AD2d 565 [2002]).
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that certaintestimony concerning the complainant's disclosure of sexual abuse to the policeconstituted improper bolstering (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Tucker, 117 AD3d1090, 1090 [2014]; Peoplev Batista, 92 AD3d 793, 793 [2012]). In any event, the testimony did not exceedthe allowable level of detail concerning the alleged incidents permitted under the promptoutcry exception to the hearsay rule (see People v McDaniel, 81 NY2d 10, 18[1993]; People v Tucker,117 AD3d 1090, 1090 [2014]; People v Bernardez, 63 AD3d 1174, 1175 [2009]).Moreover, contrary to the defendant's contention, the challenged testimony was relevantto explain the investigative process and to complete the narrative of events leading to thedefendant's arrest (see People vMehmood, 112 AD3d 850, 852 [2013]; People v Ludwig, 104 AD3d 1162 [2013]).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial due to certain improperquestioning by the prosecutor during the cross-examination of a defense witness iswithout merit.
The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel, as defensecounsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Honghirun, 29 NY3d 284 [2017]; People vBenevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]). Dillon, J.P., Miller, Hinds-Radix and Connolly, JJ., concur.