Opinion
June 2, 1989
Appeal from the Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J.
Present — Dillon, P.J., Callahan, Balio, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a severance (see, People v. Lane, 56 N.Y.2d 1; People v. Casiano, 138 A.D.2d 892, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 857; People v. Telford, 134 A.D.2d 632, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 903). Defendant concedes that the crimes charged in the indictment were "the same or similar in law" (CPL 200.20 [c]), and, consequently, were properly joinable (see, People v. Lane, supra; People v. Jenkins, 50 N.Y.2d 981; People v. Telford, supra). Where, as here, the crimes charged in the indictment are defined by the same or similar statutory provisions, applications for severance are addressed to the sound discretion of the court (CPL 200.20; People v Lane, supra, at 7; People v. Casiano, supra, at 894).
Defendant was charged with sexually assaulting three different teen-age girls on three different occasions. His primary defense at trial was a claim of insanity. Under these circumstances, "`the possibility that the jury might aggregate the evidence relating to each incident has not been shown'" (People v Casiano, supra, at 894, quoting People v. Hoke, 96 A.D.2d 677; see also, People v. Tanner, 103 A.D.2d 952). In addition, the jury was instructed by the court that they could not consider evidence with respect to one incident as evidence of one of the other incidents (see, People v. Casiano, supra, at 894; People v Telford, supra; People v. Clark, 129 A.D.2d 724, 725; People v Mack, 111 A.D.2d 186, 188). In our view, the court properly weighed the public interest in avoiding duplicative, lengthy and expensive trials against the defendant's interest in being protected from an unfair advantage in favor of the People (see, People v. Lane, supra, at 8; People v. Angelo, 133 A.D.2d 832).
We have reviewed the other claims raised by the defendant on this appeal and conclude they are without merit.