Opinion
2014-10935 Ind. No. 1696/11
12-04-2019
Edelstein & Grossman, New York, N.Y. (Jonathan I. Edelstein of counsel), for appellant. John M. Ryan, Acting District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, William H. Branigan, and Katherine A. Triffon of counsel), for respondent.
Edelstein & Grossman, New York, N.Y. (Jonathan I. Edelstein of counsel), for appellant.
John M. Ryan, Acting District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, William H. Branigan, and Katherine A. Triffon of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the prosecutor did not effectively become an unsworn expert witness during summation. The prosecutor's comments as to why a child might delay reporting sexual abuse were based on inferences that could reasonably be drawn from the evidence (see People v. Willis, 122 A.D.3d 950, 950, 997 N.Y.S.2d 472 ; People v. Crosdale, 103 A.D.3d 749, 750, 962 N.Y.S.2d 160 ; People v. Hilliard, 44 A.D.3d 498, 499, 843 N.Y.S.2d 308 ).
Furthermore, the evidence that the defendant had committed a prior sexual assault against the complainant's sister, which resulted in the family mistreating and harassing the sister instead of helping her, was probative of the complainant's state of mind with respect to why the complainant delayed reporting the abuse committed against him (see People v. Guagenti, 264 A.D.2d 427, 695 N.Y.S.2d 109 ), and the probative value of this evidence was not outweighed by its prejudicial effect.
In addition, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's request for an adjournment (see People v. Ruiz, 57 A.D.3d 576, 867 N.Y.S.2d 697 ).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.
MASTRO, J.P., ROMAN, CONNOLLY and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.