People v. Case

29 A.D.3d 706, 814 N.Y.S.2d 272
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 9, 2006
StatusPublished
Cited by16 cases

This text of 29 A.D.3d 706 (People v. Case) 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. Case, 29 A.D.3d 706, 814 N.Y.S.2d 272 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Collini, J.), rendered February 9, 2004, convicting him of rape in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, rape in the second degree (18 counts), incest (14 counts), reckless endangerment in the first degree (11 counts), and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contentions regarding the convictions of rape in the second degree and incest during specified two-month periods are not preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Weldon, 191 AD2d 662 [1993]; People v Barrett, 166 AD2d 657, 658 [1990]; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245 [1989]). In any event, the contentions are without merit. The defendant repeatedly raped and sexually abused his biological daughter over a period of five years. The victim could not recall the exact dates of the incidents. The indictment charged the defendant with a specific crime during a specified two-month period. In view of the age of the victim, the repetitive and clandestine nature of the crimes, the continuous and long-term nature of the abuse, and the fact that time is not a material element of [707]*707the charged crimes, the two-month intervals were reasonably specific and provided the defendant with adequate notice (see People v Watt, 81 NY2d 772, 774 [1993]; People v Keindl, 68 NY2d 410, 419 [1986]; People v Morris, 61 NY2d 290, 293-296 [1984]; People v Cosby, 222 AD2d 690 [1995]; People v Barrett, supra at 658; People v Willette, 109 AD2d 112, 114-115 [1985]; People v Coveney, 134 Misc 2d 894 [1987]). Moreover, the counts are neither duplicitous nor multiplicitous (see People v Keindl, supra at 419; People v Cosby, supra).

The defendant received the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Henry, 95 NY2d 563 [2000]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]). Florio, J.P., Miller, Adams and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Thompson
2025 NY Slip Op 51739(U) (New York County Court, Columbia County, 2025)
Matter of Qin Fen Wang v. Chee Kiang Foo
2019 NY Slip Op 3054 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
SPENCER, LEPOLIA J., PEOPLE v
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
People v. Spencer
119 A.D.3d 1411 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
People v. Simmons
106 A.D.3d 1115 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
People v. Persaud
98 A.D.3d 527 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People v. Ames
96 A.D.3d 867 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People v. Green
92 A.D.3d 894 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People v. Saintilus
74 A.D.3d 996 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Weekes
71 A.D.3d 1065 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Rozario
20 Misc. 3d 76 (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Franks
35 A.D.3d 1286 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
29 A.D.3d 706, 814 N.Y.S.2d 272, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-case-nyappdiv-2006.