Opinion
February 10, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hanophy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant asserts that his conviction must be reversed because the two interpreters who translated the complainant's testimony from Spanish to English were not sworn to interpret properly. We disagree. Although an interpreter must be sworn to interpret properly and accurately (see, e.g., People v. Fisher, 223 N.Y. 459), on appeal the presumption of regularity allows a court to assume that an official or person acting under an oath of office will not do anything contrary to his or her official duty or omit to do anything which his or her official duty requires to be done. The defendant has failed to come forward with any affirmative evidence of unlawful or irregular conduct to rebut this presumption (see, Richardson, Evidence § 72 [Prince 10th ed]; People v. Richetti, 302 N.Y. 290; People v. Fisher, supra; Culp v. City of New York, 146 App. Div. 326; see also, People v. Delgado, 10 Ill. App.3d 33, 294 N.E.2d 84). In this respect, we note that there was evidence that the defendant, a native of Cuba who had lived in the United States for 10 years, understood and spoke both English and Spanish. However, the defendant made no complaint as to the accuracy of the interpreters' translations.
Lastly, we find that the defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Alicea, 99 A.D.2d 815; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Sullivan, J.P., Rosenblatt, Lawrence and O'Brien, JJ., concur.