Opinion
11933 Ind. No. 2751/16 Case No. 2018-2514
10-01-2020
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ruddy ARNOAT, Defendant–Appellant.
Randall D. Unger, Kew Gardens, for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Victoria Muth of counsel), for respondent.
Randall D. Unger, Kew Gardens, for appellant.
Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Victoria Muth of counsel), for respondent.
Kapnick, J.P., Gesmer, Gonza´lez, Scarpulla, JJ.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Abraham L. Clott, J.), rendered October 19, 2017, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of sexual abuse in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 4½ years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.
The court providently exercised its discretion in denying defense motions for a mistrial following two brief allusions to uncharged misconduct by defendant (see People v. Ruiz, 171 A.D.3d 486, 97 N.Y.S.3d 109 [1st Dept. 2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 1073, 105 N.Y.S.3d 24, 129 N.E.3d 344 [2019] ). The court gave a prompt, appropriate curative instruction in one instance, and defense counsel declined to have such an instruction given in the other. The court addressed the issue in a manner sufficient to alleviate any potential prejudice, and the drastic remedy of a mistrial was not warranted (see People v. Garcia, 110 A.D.3d 530, 972 N.Y.S.2d 554 [1st Dept. 2013] ).
Defendant's argument that a police detective improperly testified regarding his opinion of the child victim's credibility is unpreserved and waived, as defendant not only failed to object to the testimony, but also deliberately elicited it in an effort to demonstrate that the detective's uncritical acceptance of the victim's story led to an inadequate investigation (see People v. Morales, 86 A.D.3d 147, 164, 924 N.Y.S.2d 62 [1st Dept. 2011], revd in part on other grounds 20 N.Y.3d 240, 958 N.Y.S.2d 660, 982 N.E.2d 580 [2012] ; People v. Semidey, 254 A.D.2d 57, 58, 680 N.Y.S.2d 478 [1st Dept. 1998], lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 985, 683 N.Y.S.2d 767, 706 N.E.2d 755 [1998]).
Defendant's claim that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct in summation is unpreserved, and we decline to address it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find that it lacks merit.