The court sentenced defendant to three years of imprisonment followed by five years of postrelease supervision. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, rejecting defendant’s argument that the trial court improperly excluded the forensic evidence under GPL 60.42 and concluding that defendant "was given ample opportunity to develop evidence at trial to support his defenses" (192 A.D.3d 1041, 1042, 141 N.Y.S.3d 319 [2d Dept. 2021]). The Appellate Division held that defendant’s additional contentions were without merit.
showing that the HPV diagnosis was relevant, Supreme Court did not "abuse[ ] its discretion in ruling [it] inadmissible under CPL 60.42" while permitting inquiry into whether other potential explanations, including diseases as a general matter, could explain the victim's physical condition ( People v. White, 261 A.D.2d 653, 656, 690 N.Y.S.2d 300 [1999], lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 1029, 697 N.Y.S.2d 588, 719 N.E.2d 949 [1999] ; seePeople v. Gaylord, 194 A.D.3d 1189, 1190, 148 N.Y.S.3d 526 [2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 972, 150 N.Y.S.3d 698, 172 N.E.3d 810 [2021] ; People v. Luscomb, 68 A.D.3d 1548, 1550–1551, 892 N.Y.S.2d 267 [2009] ). Defendant's related contention that he was denied his constitutional rights to present a defense and confront witnesses, to the extent that it is preserved for our review, is meritless in view of the fact that defense counsel was afforded "ample opportunity" to explore whether explanations other than nonconsensual sex existed for the victim's physical condition ( People v. Cerda, 192 A.D.3d 1041, 1041, 141 N.Y.S.3d 319 [2021], lv granted 37 N.Y.3d 971, 150 N.Y.S.3d 690, 172 N.E.3d 802 [2021] ; seePeople v. Luscomb, 68 A.D.3d at 1550–1551, 892 N.Y.S.2d 267 ; People v. Scott, 67 A.D.3d 1052, 1054–1055, 889 N.Y.S.2d 279 [2009], affd 16 N.Y.3d 589, 925 N.Y.S.2d 384, 949 N.E.2d 475 [2011] ). Defendant's further claim of judicial bias is largely unpreserved for our review in the absence of an appropriate motion or request that Supreme Court recuse itself as a result of the complained-of conduct and, in any event, our review of the record does not reveal that the conduct reflected bias and interfered with the presentation of a defense (seePeople v. Prado, 4 N.Y.3d 725, 726, 790 N.Y.S.2d 418, 823 N.E.2d 824 [2004] ; People v. Holmes, 151 A.D.3d 1181, 1184, 59 N.Y.S.3d 143 [2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1128, 64 N.Y.S.3d 678, 86 N.E.3d 570 [2017] ; People v. Lebron, 305 A.D.2d 799, 800, 759 N.Y.S.2d 575 [2003], lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 583, 764 N.Y.S.2d 394, 796 N.E.2d 486 [2003] ; People v. Travis, 273 A.D.2d 544
the absence of any compelling showing that the HPV diagnosis was relevant, Supreme Court did not "abuse[] its discretion in ruling [it] inadmissible under CPL 60.42" while permitting inquiry into whether other potential explanations, including diseases as a general matter, could explain the victim's physical condition (People v White, 261 A.D.2d 653, 656 [1999], lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 1029 [1999]; see People v Gaylord, 194 A.D.3d 1189, 1190 [2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 972 [2021]; People v Luscomb, 68 A.D.3d 1548, 1550-1551 [2009]). Defendant's related contention that he was denied his constitutional rights to present a defense and confront witnesses, to the extent that it is preserved for our review, is meritless in view of the fact that defense counsel was afforded "ample opportunity" to explore whether explanations other than nonconsensual sex existed for the victim's physical condition (People v Cerda, 192 A.D.3d 1041, 1041 [2021], lv granted 37 N.Y.3d 971 [2021]; see People v Luscomb, 68 A.D.3d at 1550-1551; People v Scott, 67 A.D.3d 1052, 1054-1055 [2009], affd 16 N.Y.3d 589 [2011]). Defendant's further claim of judicial bias is largely unpreserved for our review in the absence of an appropriate motion or request that Supreme Court recuse itself as a result of the complained-of conduct and, in any event, our review of the record does not reveal that the conduct reflected bias and interfered with the presentation of a defense (see People v Prado, 4 N.Y.3d 726, 726 [2004]; People v Holmes, 151 A.D.3d 1181, 1184 [2017], lv denied 29 N.Y.3d 1128 [2017]; People v Lebron, 305 A.D.2d 799, 800 [2003], lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 583 [2003]; People v Travis, 273 A.D.2d 544, 546 [2000]).