Court Opinion

ID: 4105308
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-12-07 20:08:11.730354+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:06.394500
License: Public Domain

People v Genao (2016 NY Slip Op 08246)

People v Genao

2016 NY Slip Op 08246

Decided on December 7, 2016

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on December 7, 2016
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
LEONARD B. AUSTIN
HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.

2014-00098
 (Ind. No. 2151/12)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,
vDeonicio Genao, appellant.

Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, NY (Laura B. Tatelman of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Amy Appelbaum of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Shillingford, J.), rendered December 17, 2013, convicting him of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree, course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree, course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree, and endangering the welfare of a child (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492; People v Atta, 126 AD3d 713, 716). In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to all of the crimes of which the defendant was convicted was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the testimony of the victim's mother and the victim's former boyfriend was properly admitted to assist in explaining the investigative process and completing the narrative of events leading to the defendant's arrest (see People v Gross, 26 NY3d 689, 695; People v Ludwig, 24 NY3d 221, 231).
The defendant's remaining contentions are not preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]), and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
LEVENTHAL, J.P., CHAMBERS, AUSTIN and LASALLE, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Aprilanne Agostino
Clerk of the Court