People v. Lemanski

217 A.D.2d 962, 630 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8391
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 14, 1995
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 217 A.D.2d 962 (People v. Lemanski) 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. Lemanski, 217 A.D.2d 962, 630 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8391 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted of 13 counts of a 29-count indictment charging him with rape, sodomy, sexual abuse and endangering the welfare of the minor daughter of his ex-wife. There is no merit to the contention of defendant that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial by references to uncharged acts of misconduct. The evidence complained of was properly admitted in support of the child endangerment count of the indictment (see, People v Keindl, 68 NY2d 410, 421-422).

There is likewise no merit to the contention of defendant that County Court erred in admitting expert testimony on child sexual abuse syndrome (see, People v Bennett, 79 NY2d 464, 471; People v DeLong, 206 AD2d 914, 915). Such testimony is admissible to show that a victim’s conduct is consistent with that syndrome (People v Taylor, 75 NY2d 277, 285-288). Aiding the jurors to appreciate and understand matters beyond the knowledge of the average juror is the purpose of expert testimony.

Defendant was not deprived of his right to a fair trial by the court’s evidentiary rulings. The court did not abuse its discre[963]*963tion in concluding that the evidence in question was neither relevant nor admissible (see, People v Davis, 43 NY2d 17, 27, cert denied 435 US 998; People v Glogowski, 174 AD2d 1039, 1040, lv denied 79 NY2d 857).

We have reviewed defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Erie County Court, Rogowski, J.—Rape, 2nd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Green, Pine, Callahan and Davis, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Lord
59 A.D.3d 1010 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
People v. Coulter
182 Misc. 2d 29 (Nassau County District Court, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
217 A.D.2d 962, 630 N.Y.S.2d 174, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8391, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lemanski-nyappdiv-1995.