People v. Hernandez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hernandez

71 A.D.3d 1501, 896 N.Y.S.2d 754

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

DecidedMarch 19, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 71 A.D.3d 1501 (People v. Hernandez) 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. Hernandez, 71 A.D.3d 1501, 896 N.Y.S.2d 754 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (John R. Schwartz, A.J.), rendered December 15, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a nonjury verdict, of sexual abuse in the first degree (three counts) and endangering the welfare of a child (three counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a nonjury trial of three counts each of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65 [1]) and endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10 [1]). We reject defendant’s contention that County Court erred in admitting the testimony of an expert concerning Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (see People v Gunther, 67 AD3d 1477 [2009]; People v [1502]*1502Krause, 187 AD2d 1019, 1020 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 842 [1993]). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes in this nonjury trial (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we reject defendant’s further contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). The court’s determination to credit the testimony of the victim is entitled to deference, and we see no reason to disturb that determination (see People v Stone, 49 AD3d 1314 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 965 [2008]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court erred in setting the expiration date of the order of protection (see People v Nieves, 2 NY3d 310, 315-317 [2004]). In any event, that contention is without merit inasmuch as the court properly specified an expiration date in accordance with CPL 530.13 (former [4]), the version of the statute in effect when the judgment was rendered (see People v Lake, 45 AD3d 1409, 1410-1411 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 767 [2008]; People v Moss [appeal No. 1], 45 AD3d 1412 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 768 [2008]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Sconiers, Green and Gorski, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (John R. Schwartz, A.J.), rendered December 15, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a nonjury verdict, of sexual abuse in the first degree (three counts) and endangering the welfare of a child (three counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a nonjury trial of three counts each of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65 [1]) and endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10 [1]). We reject defendant’s contention that County Court erred in admitting the testimony of an expert concerning Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (see People v Gunther, 67 AD3d 1477 [2009]; People v [1502]*1502Krause, 187 AD2d 1019, 1020 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 842 [1993]). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes in this nonjury trial (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we reject defendant’s further contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). The court’s determination to credit the testimony of the victim is entitled to deference, and we see no reason to disturb that determination (see People v Stone, 49 AD3d 1314 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 965 [2008]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court erred in setting the expiration date of the order of protection (see People v Nieves, 2 NY3d 310, 315-317 [2004]). In any event, that contention is without merit inasmuch as the court properly specified an expiration date in accordance with CPL 530.13 (former [4]), the version of the statute in effect when the judgment was rendered (see People v Lake, 45 AD3d 1409, 1410-1411 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 767 [2008]; People v Moss [appeal No. 1], 45 AD3d 1412 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 768 [2008]). Present — Scudder, P.J., Sconiers, Green and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.3d 1501, 896 N.Y.S.2d 754, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hernandez-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack