<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent, <br><br>against<br><br>Mark A. Schmucker, Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Mischel &amp; Horn, P.C. (Richard E. Mischel, Esq.), for appellant.Queens County District Attorney (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill,Jeanette Lifschitz, Aurora Alvarez-Calderon of counsel), for respondent.</p><p>Appeal from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County (John F. Zoll, J.), rendered September 30, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of sexual abuse in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child.</p><p>ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.</p><p>Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of sexual abuse in the second degree (Penal Law ยง 130.60 [2]) and endangering the welfare of a child (Penal Law ยง 260.10 [2]). In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (<i>see</i> CPL 470.15 [5]; <a href="../2007/2007_09814.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Danielson</i>, 9 NY3d 342</a> [2007]), we accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their testimony, observe their demeanor and assess their credibility (<a href="../2006/2006_08641.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Lane</i>, 7 NY3d 888</a>, 890 [2006]; <a href="../2006/2006_08640.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Romero</i>, 7 NY3d 633</a>, 645 [2006]; <i>People v Bleakley</i>, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). The resolution of credibility issues is primarily a determination for the trier of fact, which should not be disturbed "unless the trier of fact has failed to give the evidence the weight it should be accorded" (<a href="../2006/2006_52507.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Khanna</i>, 14 Misc 3d 128</a>[A], 2006 NY Slip Op 52507[U], *1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th &amp; 10th Jud Dists 2006]; <a href="../2017/2017_50145.htm" target="_blank"><i>see also People v Kahl</i>, 54 Misc 3d 138</a>[A], 2017 NY Slip Op 50145[U], *1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th &amp; 10th Jud Dists 2017]). Upon a review of the record, we find no basis to disturb the jury's determination to credit the victim's testimony as to defendant's sexual conduct in the classroom where he served as a substitute teacher.</p><p>Defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (<i>see </i>CPL <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>470.05 [2]; <a href="../2016/2016_03900.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Ramtahal</i>, 139 AD3d 983</a>, 984 [2016]; <a href="../2014/2014_02788.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Boley</i>, 116 AD3d 965</a>, 966 [2014]; <a href="../2013/2013_08261.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Bellman</i>, 112 AD3d 732</a>, 733 [2013]; <a href="../2013/2013_07750.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Mohabir</i>, 111 AD3d 851</a>, 852 [2013]; <a href="../2007/2007_00146.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Beauliere</i>, 36 AD3d 623</a>, 623 [2007]; <a href="../2010/2010_50577.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Maduro</i>, 27 Misc 3d 127</a>[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50577[U], *1 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2010]) or without merit (<i>see People v Hayes</i>, 97 NY2d 203, 208 [2002];<i> People v Perry</i>, 221 AD2d 736, 737 [1995]; <a href="../2011/2011_50832.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v DaCosta</i>, 31 Misc 3d 142</a>[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 50832[U], *2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th &amp; 10th Jud Dists 2011]).</p><p>However, we note our disapproval of the prosecutor's inappropriate summation remarks concerning defendant's pretrial silence and demeanor (<a href="../2015/2015_02866.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Williams</i>, 25 NY3d 185</a>, 190 [2015]; <a href="../2011/2011_06575.htm" target="_blank"><i>e.g. People v Tucker</i>, 87 AD3d 1077</a>, 1078-1079 [2011]). A defendant's silence is "generally ambiguous" and "  of extremely limited probative worth' " (<i>People v Williams</i>, 25 NY3dat 191, quoting <i>People v Conyers</i>, 52 NY2d 454, 458 [1981]), and, as defendant did not testify, none of the exceptions grounded in impeachment interests apply (<i>see People v Williams</i>, 25 NY3d at 191-193;<i> cf. People v Savage</i>, 50 NY2d 673 [1980]; <i>People v Rothschild</i>, 35 NY2d 355 [1974]). The prosecutor's attempt to contrast defendant's demeanor in the face of accusations with that of a purportedly innocent person was likewise improper (<i>People v Morgan</i>, 66 NY2d 255, 259 [1985]). However, as the defense did not object to the evidence upon which those remarks were based nor to the prosecutor's commentary thereon, defendant failed to preserve those claims for appellate review (<i>see</i> CPL 470.05 [2]; <i>People v Basora</i>, 75 NY2d 992, 994 [1990]; <a href="../2014/2014_06109.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Philips</i>, 120 AD3d 1266</a>, 1268 [2014]). Were we to address the question of whether that evidence and commentary implicated state evidentiary rules or state constitutional rights (<a href="../2015/2015_09315.htm" target="_blank"><i>see People v Pavone</i>, 26 NY3d 629</a>, 642-643 [2015]), we would not disturb the judgment of conviction, as the proof of defendant's guilt was overwhelming and "there [was] no reasonable possibility that [the errors] affected the outcome of the trial" (<a href="../2012/2012_07855.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Best</i>, 19 NY3d 739</a>, 744 [2012];<i> see e.g. People v Aziziandavidi</i>, 100 AD3d 765, 766 [2012]; <a href="../2014/2014_50622.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Jackson</i>, 43 Misc 3d 132</a>[A], 2014 NY Slip Op 50622[U], *2 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th &amp; 13th Jud Dists 2014]). </p><p>Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.</p><p>PESCE, P.J., WESTON and ALIOTTA, JJ., concur.</p><br>Paul Kenny<br>Chief Clerk<br>Decision Date: November 24, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_2_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>