Opinion
October 3, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald Zweibel, J.).
We reject defendant's contention, based on the forensic scientist's conclusion that the DNA isolated from the semen stain on complainant's clothing did not belong to defendant, that the evidence of his guilt on the rape and sodomy counts was insufficient, since corroborative medical evidence is not required to sustain a rape conviction based on a theory of forcible compulsion ( People v. Arhin, 203 A.D.2d 62, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 908). We note the absence of defendant's DNA in the semen sample was readily explained: complainant testified that she did not know whether defendant had ejaculated during the sexual assaults and that she had engaged in sexual intercourse with her boyfriend on the evening before and the morning of the day of the attack.
Defendant's remaining contentions have largely been considered and rejected by this Court on the appeal of codefendant Perry Van Dyke ( 214 A.D.2d 468) and are, in any event, without merit.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.