Opinion
2016–10272 Ind.No. 1487/15
12-05-2018
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Charles OKONKWO, Jr., Appellant.
Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, N.Y. (Kirk R. Brandt of counsel), for appellant. Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Marion Tang of counsel), for respondent.
Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, N.Y. (Kirk R. Brandt of counsel), for appellant.
Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Marion Tang of counsel), for respondent.
LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, SANDRA L. SGROI, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The qualification of a witness to testify as an expert is a matter that rests in the sound discretion of the trial court, and the court's determination should not be disturbed on appeal in the absence of a serious mistake, an error of law, or an improvident exercise of discretion (see Meiselman v. Crown Hgts. Hosp. , 285 N.Y. 389, 398–399, 34 N.E.2d 367 ; Felicia v. Boro Crescent Corp. , 105 A.D.3d 697, 698, 964 N.Y.S.2d 158 ; Riccio v. NHT Owners, LLC , 79 A.D.3d 998, 914 N.Y.S.2d 238 ; de Hernandez v. Lutheran Med. Ctr. , 46 A.D.3d 517, 850 N.Y.S.2d 460 ; Steinbuch v. Stern , 2 A.D.3d 709, 710, 770 N.Y.S.2d 106 ). "The competence of an expert in a particular subject may derive from long observation and real world experience, and is not dependent upon formal training or attainment of an academic degree in the subject" ( Miele v. American Tobacco Co. , 2 A.D.3d 799, 802, 770 N.Y.S.2d 386 ; see Caprara v. Chrysler Corp. , 52 N.Y.2d 114, 121, 436 N.Y.S.2d 251, 417 N.E.2d 545 ; Meiselman v. Crown Hgts. Hosp. , 285 N.Y. at 398, 34 N.E.2d 367 ; Felicia v. Boro Crescent Corp., 105 A.D.3d at 698, 964 N.Y.S.2d 158 ; McLamb v. Metropolitan Suburban Bus Auth. , 139 A.D.2d 572, 573, 527 N.Y.S.2d 73 ). Here, the County Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in allowing the People's witness to testify as an expert on the subject of the traumatic injuries that the complainant suffered and the causes of those injuries. Moreover, the court providently exercised its discretion in determining the admissibility and scope of the expert's testimony (see People v. Williams , 20 N.Y.3d 579, 584, 964 N.Y.S.2d 483, 987 N.E.2d 260 ; People v. Lee , 96 N.Y.2d 157, 162, 726 N.Y.S.2d 361, 750 N.E.2d 63 ; People v. Hill , 85 N.Y.2d 256, 261, 624 N.Y.S.2d 79, 648 N.E.2d 455 ; De Long v. County of Erie , 60 N.Y.2d 296, 307, 469 N.Y.S.2d 611, 457 N.E.2d 717 ), which, here, was helpful in clarifying issues beyond the ken of the typical juror (see People v. Diaz , 20 N.Y.3d 569, 575, 965 N.Y.S.2d 738, 988 N.E.2d 473 ; People v. Williams , 20 N.Y.3d at 584, 964 N.Y.S.2d 483, 987 N.E.2d 260 ; People v. Rivers , 18 N.Y.3d 222, 228, 936 N.Y.S.2d 650, 960 N.E.2d 419 ; People v. Hill , 85 N.Y.2d at 261, 624 N.Y.S.2d 79, 648 N.E.2d 455 ; De Long v. County of Erie , 60 N.Y.2d at 307, 469 N.Y.S.2d 611, 457 N.E.2d 717 ).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte , 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
AUSTIN, J.P., ROMAN, SGROI and LASALLE, JJ., concur.