From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Gersten

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 5, 2001
280 A.D.2d 487 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Argued January 5, 2001.

February 5, 2001.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Belfi, J.), rendered January 5, 2000, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree (six counts), sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts), and endangering the welfare of a child, after a nonjury trial, and sentencing him to consecutive indeterminate terms of 12 1/2 to 25 years imprisonment on the first 3 counts of sodomy in the first degree, concurrent indeterminate terms of 12 1/2 to 25 years imprisonment on the remaining 3 counts of sodomy in the first degree, and concurrent determinate terms of 7 years imprisonment for sexual abuse in the first degree (two counts) and one year imprisonment for endangering the welfare of a child.

Laurie S. Hershey, Garden City, N.Y. (Samuel E. Rieff and Kevin J. Keating of counsel), for appellant.

Denis Dillon, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tammy Smiley and Daniel T. Butler of counsel), for respondent.

Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ANITA R. FLORIO, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reducing the term of imprisonment imposed on each conviction of sodomy in the first degree from 12 1/2 to 25 years imprisonment to 8 1/3 to 25 years imprisonment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contentions concerning the admission of evidence of uncharged crimes and expert testimony on child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome are unpreserved for appellate review. These arguments were not raised in the trial court (see, People v. James, 262 A.D.2d 500; People v. Wilson, 225 A.D.2d 642; People v. Perez, 194 A.D.2d 812), and we decline to review them in the exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction.

Insofar as the defendant's contention of ineffective assistance of counsel can be reviewed on this record, we are satisfied that, under the totality of the circumstances existing at the time of representation, the defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v. Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 708; People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 798-799; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 146-147).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court legally imposed consecutive sentences for his convictions of sodomy in the first degree under counts one, two, and three of the indictment, as each count involved a separate sexual act constituting a distinct offense (see, People v. White, 261 A.D.2d 653, 657-658; People v. Rivera, 186 A.D.2d 594, 596; Penal Law § 70.25).

However, the terms of imprisonment imposed on the defendant's convictions of sodomy in the first degree under counts one through six of the indictment were illegal and should be reduced from 12 1/2 to 25 years imprisonment to 8 1/3 to 25 years imprisonment. Since the crimes were committed in March 1995, the minimum term of imprisonment on these convictions should have been one-third of the maximum term, not one-half (see, Penal Law § 70.02, as amended by L 1995, ch 3, § 4; People v. Wade, ___ A.D.2d ___ [2d Dept., Nov. 27, 2000]; People v. Glass, 242 A.D.2d 305). The terms of imprisonment imposed on the defendant's remaining convictions are legal, and the sentence, as modified, is not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).


Summaries of

People v. Gersten

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 5, 2001
280 A.D.2d 487 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

People v. Gersten

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., RESPONDENT, v. BEN GERSTEN, APPELLANT. (IND. NO. 1591/99)

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 5, 2001

Citations

280 A.D.2d 487 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
719 N.Y.S.2d 900

Citing Cases

Gersten v. Senkowski

Otherwise, it affirmed With regard to petitioner's contention of ineffective assistance of counsel, the court…

State v. Dallas

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court legally…