People v. Dorn — 140 A.D.3d 898

Majority

p. 898

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joseph Dorn, Appellant.

[32 NYS3d 919]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Toomey, J.), rendered March 11, 2014, convicting him of rape in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 , 492 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]),

p. 899

we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 , 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 , 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the record as a whole demonstrates that he received effective assistance of counsel under both federal and state constitutional standards (see Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 , 147 [1981]).

The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of his constitutional right to present a defense and to confront the prosecution’s witnesses against him because certain of the court’s rulings limited his cross-examination of the complainant is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Ramsundar, 138 AD3d 892 [2016]; People v Simmons, 106 AD3d 1115 , 1116 [2013]). In any event, any error in connection with the scope of cross-examination was harmless (see People v Allen, 50 NY2d 898 , 899 [1980]; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 , 237 [1975]; People v Chestnut, 237 AD2d 528 [1997]; People v Batista, 113 AD2d 890 , 892-893 [1985]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.

Leventhal, J.P., Chambers, Hinds-Radix and Connolly, JJ., concur.

Cases cited

People v. Hawkins 11 NY3d 484 N.Y. 2008-11-25 at 492 p. 898
People v. Contes 60 NY2d 620 N.Y. 1983-09-01 p. 898
People v. Danielson 9 NY3d 342 N.Y. 2007-12-13 p. 898
People v. Bleakley 69 NY2d 490 N.Y. 1987-05-07 at 495 p. 899
People v. Romero 7 NY3d 633 N.Y. 2006-11-21 p. 899
Strickland v. Washington 466 US 668 SCOTUS 1984-05-14 p. 899
People v. Benevento 91 NY2d 708 N.Y. 1998-06-11 p. 899
People v. Baldi 54 NY2d 137 N.Y. 1981-10-29 at 147 p. 899
People v. Ramsundar 138 AD3d 892 N.Y. App. Div. 2016-04-13 p. 899
People v. Allen 50 NY2d 898 N.Y. 1980-06-10 at 899 p. 899
People v. Crimmins 36 NY2d 230 N.Y. 1975-02-25 at 237 p. 899
People v. Batista 113 AD2d 890 N.Y. App. Div. 1985-09-23 at 892-893 p. 899
People v. Suitte 90 AD2d 80 N.Y. App. Div. 1982-11-22 p. 899