Opinion
No. 2017-11467 Ind. No. 150/16
11-03-2021
The People, etc., respondent, v. Andre Broderick, appellant.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Joshua M. Levine of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Diane R. Eisner of counsel), for respondent.
Argued - October 4, 2021
D67559 T/htr
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Joshua M. Levine of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Diane R. Eisner of counsel), for respondent.
MARK C. DILLON, J.P. LINDA CHRISTOPHER PAUL WOOTEN JOSEPH A. ZAYAS, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Deborah Dowling, J.), rendered October 5, 2017, convicting him of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was indicted and charged with, inter alia, one count of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree based upon allegations that he engaged in sexual conduct with his step-daughter during a period of time between January 12, 2015, and January 1, 2016, exceeding three months, when the child was 10 years old. After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Green-Faulkner, 189 A.D.3d 1070, 1071; People v Horton, 173 A.D.3d 1338, 1340; People v Cooper, 151 A.D.3d 1831, 1831). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 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 N.Y.3d 383, 410; People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633).
The defendant's contention that certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation deprived him of a fair trial is largely unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant either failed to object or made only general objections, and failed to request curative instructions, and the comments now complained of were not the basis for the defendant's motion for a mistrial (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Ogilvie, 197 A.D.3d 730, 731; People v Lominy, 176 A.D.3d 741, 742; People v Willis, 165 A.D.3d 984, 985). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit, as the remarks were a fair response to the defense summation and the defendant's attack on the credibility of the witnesses, or otherwise do not warrant reversal (see People v Green-Faulkner, 189 A.D.3d at 1072; People v Lominy, 176 A.D.3d at 742; People v Carter, 152 A.D.3d 786; People v Ross, 112 A.D.3d 972, 973).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
DILLON, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WOOTEN and ZAYAS, JJ., concur.