Opinion
March 31, 1999
Appeal from Adjudication of Ontario County Court, Henry, Jr., J. — Youthful Offender.
PRESENT: GREEN, J. P., HAYES, PIGOTT, JR., SCUDDER AND CALLAHAN, JJ.
Adjudication unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention of defendant that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65) because the People failed to prove that he touched the victim's vagina for the purpose of gratifying sexual desire ( see, Penal Law § 130.00). The sexual gratification element may be inferred from the conduct itself ( see, People v. Dehler, 216 A.D.2d 643, 644, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 734; Matter of Olivia YY., 209 A.D.2d 892). We further reject the contention that the People failed to present sufficient proof corroborating defendant's statement to the police ( see, CPL 60.50). The People presented corroborative proof placing defendant at the crime scene ( see, People v. Lipsky, 57 N.Y.2d 560, 571, rearg denied 58 N.Y.2d 824), and "there was additional corroborative evidence presented by the victim's prompt outcry" ( People v. Bott, 234 A.D.2d 625, 626, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1009; see, People v. Cordero, ___ A.D.2d ___ [decided Jan. 7, 1999]).
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the 28-day delay between the conclusion of the trial and the verdict deprived him of his right to a prompt verdict ( see, People v. Munn, 184 A.D.2d 1061, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 932) and that the indictment does not sufficiently specify the time period in which the crime was committed ( see, People v. Harris, 150 A.D.2d 723, 724). We decline to exercise our power to review those contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see, CPL 470.15 [a]).