Opinion
2012-12-19
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Jose Luis BARRETO–MEJIA, appellant.
Pappalardo & Pappalardo, LLP, Scarsdale, N.Y. (John P. Devaney and Jill K. Sanders of counsel), for appellant. Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Maria I. Wagner, Steven A. Bender, and Richard Longworth Hecht of counsel), for respondent.
Pappalardo & Pappalardo, LLP, Scarsdale, N.Y. (John P. Devaney and Jill K. Sanders of counsel), for appellant. Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Maria I. Wagner, Steven A. Bender, and Richard Longworth Hecht of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Neary, J.), rendered April 21, 2010, convicting him of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree (two counts) and endangering the welfare of a child (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the trial court properly determined that the then–10 year-old complainant was a vulnerable child witness within the meaning of CPL 65.20 based upon the testimony and evidence presented at the hearing, which collectively established, by clear and convincing evidence, several of the 12 factors cited in CPL 65.20(10) ( see CPL 65.20[10]; People v. Cintron, 75 N.Y.2d 249, 267, 552 N.Y.S.2d 68, 551 N.E.2d 561;People v. Ramos, 203 A.D.2d 599, 611 N.Y.S.2d 216;People v. Lindstadt, 174 A.D.2d 696, 697, 571 N.Y.S.2d 551;People v. Guce, 164 A.D.2d 946, 947, 560 N.Y.S.2d 53). Accordingly, that complainant was properly permitted to testify via two-way closed-circuit television, and the defendant's*526constitutional right to confrontation was not violated.
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.