People v. Goodman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Goodman

21 A.D.3d 906, 800 N.Y.S.2d 631

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

DecidedSeptember 6, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 21 A.D.3d 906 (People v. Goodman) 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. Goodman, 21 A.D.3d 906, 800 N.Y.S.2d 631 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.), rendered June 9, 1999, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree (three counts) and endangering the welfare of a child (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the testimony of the People’s expert on the subject of Intrafamilial Child Sex Abuse Syndrome improperly bolstered the complainants’ testimony and deprived him of due process and a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review, as he did not object on these grounds before the trial court (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Ocean, 292 AD2d 545, 546 [2002]; People v Naranjo, 194 AD2d 747, 748 [1993]). In any event, there is no merit to the defendant’s contention, as the testimony helped explain the complainants’ behavior after the [907]*907abuse, which was not within the purview of the average juror (see People v Carroll, 95 NY2d 375, 387 [2000]; People v Taylor, 75 NY2d 277, 288 [1990]; People v Keindl, 68 NY2d 410, 422 [1986]; People v Hinspeter, 12 AD3d 617, 618 [2004]; People v Brown, 7 AD3d 726, 727 [2004]; People v Lopez, 187 AD2d 533, 534 [1992]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit (see People v Taylor, 1 NY3d 174, 176 [2003]; People v Tonge, 93 NY2d 838, 840 [1999]; People v McFarlane, 18 AD3d 577 [2005]). Schmidt, J.P., S. Miller, Santucci and Skelos, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.), rendered June 9, 1999, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree (three counts) and endangering the welfare of a child (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the testimony of the People’s expert on the subject of Intrafamilial Child Sex Abuse Syndrome improperly bolstered the complainants’ testimony and deprived him of due process and a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review, as he did not object on these grounds before the trial court (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Ocean, 292 AD2d 545, 546 [2002]; People v Naranjo, 194 AD2d 747, 748 [1993]). In any event, there is no merit to the defendant’s contention, as the testimony helped explain the complainants’ behavior after the [907]*907abuse, which was not within the purview of the average juror (see People v Carroll, 95 NY2d 375, 387 [2000]; People v Taylor, 75 NY2d 277, 288 [1990]; People v Keindl, 68 NY2d 410, 422 [1986]; People v Hinspeter, 12 AD3d 617, 618 [2004]; People v Brown, 7 AD3d 726, 727 [2004]; People v Lopez, 187 AD2d 533, 534 [1992]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit (see People v Taylor, 1 NY3d 174, 176 [2003]; People v Tonge, 93 NY2d 838, 840 [1999]; People v McFarlane, 18 AD3d 577 [2005]). Schmidt, J.P., S. Miller, Santucci and Skelos, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

21 A.D.3d 906, 800 N.Y.S.2d 631, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-goodman-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack