People v. Romero
This text of 2025 NY Slip Op 03085 (People v. Romero) 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.
Opinion
| People v Romero |
| 2025 NY Slip Op 03085 |
| Decided on May 21, 2025 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on May 21, 2025 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
LARA J. GENOVESI, J.P.
DEBORAH A. DOWLING
LILLIAN WAN
JANICE A. TAYLOR, JJ.
2024-01485
(Ind. No. 2268/20)
v
Eduardo Romero, appellant.
Arthur G. Trakas (Andrew B. Schultz, Franklin Square, NY, of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Jordan Cerruti, and Simcha Engelen of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Donald Leo, J.), rendered January 18, 2024, convicting him of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, forcible touching (two counts), endangering the welfare of a child (two counts), and strangulation in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was charged, inter alia, with course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree based upon allegations that he engaged in sexual conduct with his stepdaughter during a period of time between October 29, 2012, and March 25, 2013, when the child was nine years old. After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted, among other things, of that charge.
In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to the charge of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the purported discrepancies between the complainant's trial testimony and her prior out-of-court statements were not of such magnitude as to render her testimony incredible or unreliable (see People v Stewart, 222 AD3d 781, 782).
GENOVESI, J.P., DOWLING, WAN and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
ENTER:Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2025 NY Slip Op 03085, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-romero-nyappdiv-2025.