Opinion
2019–05385 Ind. No. 1328/18
03-24-2021
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Sergio CERDA, appellant.
Barket Epstein Kearon Aldea & LoTurco, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. ( Donna Aldea of counsel), for appellant. Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. ( Tammy J. Smiley and Andrew Fukuda of counsel), for respondent.
Barket Epstein Kearon Aldea & LoTurco, LLP, Garden City, N.Y. ( Donna Aldea of counsel), for appellant.
Madeline Singas, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. ( Tammy J. Smiley and Andrew Fukuda of counsel), for respondent.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, ROBERT J. MILLER, PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
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 a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not denied his constitutional rights to due process 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. The defendant was given ample opportunity to develop evidence at trial to support his defenses ( see People v. Curtis, 188 A.D.3d 1090, 1091, 132 N.Y.S.3d 683 ; People v. Weberman, 134 A.D.3d 862, 863, 22 N.Y.S.3d 97 ; People v. Simmons, 106 A.D.3d 1115, 1116, 965 N.Y.S.2d 618 ).
The defendant contends that his conviction of sexual abuse in the first degree was against the weight of the evidence. In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15[5] ; People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 348, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1 ), 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 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053 ; People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672 ). 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 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
CHAMBERS, J.P., AUSTIN, MILLER and WOOTEN, JJ., concur.