| People v Cerda |
| 2021 NY Slip Op 01784 [192 AD3d 1041] |
| March 24, 2021 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Sergio Cerda, Appellant. |
Barket Epstein Kearon Aldea & LoTurco, LLP, Garden City, NY (Donna Aldea ofcounsel), for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Tammy J. Smiley and Andrew Fukuda ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robert A.Schwartz, J.), rendered May 2, 2019, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree, upon ajury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not denied his constitutional rights to dueprocess and to confront witnesses by the Supreme Court's application of the Rape Shield Law(CPL 60.42) to prohibit him from introducing into evidence portions of a laboratory report. Thedefendant was given ample opportunity to develop evidence at trial to support his defenses (see People v Curtis, 188 AD3d1090, 1091 [2020]; People vWeberman, 134 AD3d 862, 863 [2015]; People v Simmons, 106 AD3d 1115, 1116 [2013]).
The defendant contends that his conviction of sexual abuse in the first degree was against theweight of the evidence. In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of theweight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348 [2007]), we neverthelessaccord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, andobserve demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; People vBleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied thatthe verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633[2006]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Chambers, J.P., Austin, Miller andWooten, JJ., concur.