From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Maye

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 6, 1996
227 A.D.2d 417 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)

Opinion

May 6, 1996

Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Angiolillo, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Following the rape in this case, the 13-year-old victim tested positive for a sexually transmitted disease called chlamydia trachomatis. Subsequently, the court granted the People's unopposed motion to compel the defendant to submit to the same test. The defendant tested negative. At trial, the negative test results were admitted into evidence over the People's objection. It was established through the testimony of the People's medical expert, however, that the method that was used to test the defendant was not in accordance with accepted medical procedures and may, therefore, have resulted in a false negative reading.

On appeal, the defendant maintains that the indictment should be dismissed due to the People's failure to properly administer the subject test. This contention, however, is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 210.45; see also, People v Jennings, 69 N.Y.2d 103). In any event, the claimed error does not warrant the drastic remedy of dismissal of the indictment ( see, People v. Haupt, 71 N.Y.2d 929; People v. Kelly, 62 N.Y.2d 516). Here, the defendant has not demonstrated any prosecutorial fault in connection with the administration of the test ( see, People v Martinez, 71 N.Y.2d 937; People v. Allgood, 70 N.Y.2d 812; see also, People v. Bridges, 184 A.D.2d 1042; People v. Deresky, 134 A.D.2d 512) or undue prejudice stemming from the test procedure. Moreover, in light of the testimony of the victim, any error stemming from test methods was harmless ( see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).

The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel ( see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137; see also, People v Hobot, 84 N.Y.2d 1021; People v. Cuesta, 177 A.D.2d 639).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05), without merit, or cannot be addressed on the record before us ( see, People v Neal, 205 A.D.2d 711). Mangano, P.J., Ritter, Hart and McGinity, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Maye

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 6, 1996
227 A.D.2d 417 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
Case details for

People v. Maye

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. LEWIS E. MAYE, SR.…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: May 6, 1996

Citations

227 A.D.2d 417 (N.Y. App. Div. 1996)
642 N.Y.S.2d 58