Opinion
2001-11029, 2000-08951
Argued December 10, 2001.
December 31, 2001.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Brown, J.), rendered August 24, 2000, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree, sodomy in the second degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Thomas F. Liotti, Garden City, N.Y. (Christopher W. Zeh and Fred Bennett of counsel), for appellant.
Denis Dillon, District Attorney, Mineola, N Y (Peter A. Weinstein and Robert A. Schwartz of counsel), for respondent.
Before: DANIEL F. LUCIANO, J.P., SANDRA L. TOWNES, STEPHEN G. CRANE, A. GAIL PRUDENTI, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it is legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Furthermore, resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the jury, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt is not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The County Court was correct in determining that the defendant failed in his burden of demonstrating that "Parental Alienation Syndrome" was generally accepted in the relevant scientific communities (see, Frye v. United States, 293 F 1013; People v. Wernick, 89 N.Y.2d 111; People v. Wesley, 83 N.Y.2d 417). In making that determination, the County Court properly considered that the defendant's sole witness at the Frye hearing had a significant financial interest in having his theory accepted (see, People v. Leone, 25 N.Y.2d 511, 515; see also, People v. Wesley, supra, at 437 [Kaye, C. J., concurring]).
Since the trial had been completed and the verdict had been rendered at the time the Trial Judge took a leave of absence, the Sentencing Judge was not required to read the minutes of the trial in detail. His review of the pre-sentence report and the victim's testimony was sufficient (see, People v. Cruz, 265 A.D.2d 488; People v. Thompson, 202 A.D.2d 612; see also, People v. Figueroa, 227 A.D.2d 501; People v. Cannon, 208 A.D.2d 942; cf., People v. Thompson, 90 N.Y.2d 615).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Felix, 58 N.Y.2d 156; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review since he acquiesced in the lack of a specific ruling on the issue (see, People v. Graves, 85 N.Y.2d 1024; People v. Rodriguez, 50 N.Y.2d 553; People v. Valentine, 271 A.D.2d 245; People v. Rivera, 257 A.D.2d 425).
LUCIANO, J.P., TOWNES, CRANE and PRUDENTI, JJ., concur.