People v. Alicea

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Alicea

255 A.D.2d 240, 682 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12712

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 24, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 255 A.D.2d 240 (People v. Alicea) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Alicea, 255 A.D.2d 240, 682 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12712 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James Yates, J.), rendered July 23, 1997, 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 prison terms of 1 year, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury’s findings concerning the child witness’s credibility.

Defendant’s claim that the court failed to comply with CPL 65.30 (2) requires preservation (see, People v Watt, 84 NY2d 948, 951-952; see also, People v Agramonte, 87 NY2d 765), and we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the record provides no support for defendant’s purely speculative contention that the images of the jury and of defendant were not transmitted to the complainant as she testified via closed circuit television from the testimonial room. It is presumed that the statutory requirements were satisfied (People v Dominique, 90 NY2d 880).

[241]*241We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur — Lerner, P. J., Williams, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (James Yates, J.), rendered July 23, 1997, 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 prison terms of 1 year, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. We see no reason to disturb the jury’s findings concerning the child witness’s credibility.

Defendant’s claim that the court failed to comply with CPL 65.30 (2) requires preservation (see, People v Watt, 84 NY2d 948, 951-952; see also, People v Agramonte, 87 NY2d 765), and we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the record provides no support for defendant’s purely speculative contention that the images of the jury and of defendant were not transmitted to the complainant as she testified via closed circuit television from the testimonial room. It is presumed that the statutory requirements were satisfied (People v Dominique, 90 NY2d 880).

[241]*241We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur — Lerner, P. J., Williams, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

255 A.D.2d 240, 682 N.Y.S.2d 12, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12712, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-alicea-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack