People v. Burke

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Burke

293 A.D.2d 416, 740 N.Y.S.2d 856, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4372

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

DecidedApril 30, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 293 A.D.2d 416 (People v. Burke) 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. Burke, 293 A.D.2d 416, 740 N.Y.S.2d 856, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4372 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Stackhouse, J.), rendered January 12, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of sodomy in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child, and sentencing him to consecutive terms of seven years and one year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the trial court improperly redacted the narrative describing the victim’s complaints from the report of defendant’s expert medical witness is unreviewable because the record before this Court does not reflect what redactions were actually made (see, People v Olivo, 52 NY2d 309, 320). In any event, defendant could not have been prejudiced by any redactions from the report itself, inasmuch as he was permitted to elicit the contents of the report during the witness’s direct testimony.

The testimony of the People’s medical expert was properly admitted in all respects. The record establishes that the witness conducted an examination of the victim as both a treating physician and expert witness, and she was properly permitted to testify as to matters related to diagnosis and treatment (see, People v Anderson, 184 AD2d 1005, lv denied 80 NY2d 926).

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur—Williams, P.J., Tom, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Stackhouse, J.), rendered January 12, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of sodomy in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child, and sentencing him to consecutive terms of seven years and one year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the trial court improperly redacted the narrative describing the victim’s complaints from the report of defendant’s expert medical witness is unreviewable because the record before this Court does not reflect what redactions were actually made (see, People v Olivo, 52 NY2d 309, 320). In any event, defendant could not have been prejudiced by any redactions from the report itself, inasmuch as he was permitted to elicit the contents of the report during the witness’s direct testimony.

The testimony of the People’s medical expert was properly admitted in all respects. The record establishes that the witness conducted an examination of the victim as both a treating physician and expert witness, and she was properly permitted to testify as to matters related to diagnosis and treatment (see, People v Anderson, 184 AD2d 1005, lv denied 80 NY2d 926).

Defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur—Williams, P.J., Tom, Mazzarelli, Andrias and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

293 A.D.2d 416, 740 N.Y.S.2d 856, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-burke-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack