Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Hernandez

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FOURTH DEPARTMENT


March 19, 2010

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
v.
ALEXANDER HERNANDEZ, APPELLANT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (John R. Schwartz, A.J.), rendered December 15, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a non-jury verdict, of sexual abuse in the first degree (three counts) and endangering the welfare of a child (three counts).

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

As corrected through Wednesday, April 28, 2010

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a non-jury trial of three counts each of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65 [1]) and endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10 [1]). We reject defendant's contention that County Court erred in admitting the testimony of an expert concerning Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (see People v Gunther, 67 AD3d 1477 [2009]; People v Krause, 187 AD2d 1019, 1020 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 842 [1993]). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes in this non-jury trial (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we reject defendant's further contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). The court's determination to credit the testimony of the victim is entitled to deference, and we see no reason to disturb that determination (see People v Stone, 49 AD3d 1314 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 965 [2008]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court erred in setting the expiration date of the order of protection (see People v Nieves, 2 NY3d 310, 315-317 [2004]). In any event, that contention is without merit inasmuch as the court properly specified an expiration date in accordance with CPL 530.13 (former [4]), the version of the statute in effect when the judgment was rendered (see People v Lake, 45 AD3d 1409, 1410-1411 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 767 [2008]; People v Moss [appeal No. 1], 45 AD3d 1412 [2007], lv denied 10 NY3d 768 [2008]).

Present---Scudder, P.J., Sconiers, Green and Gorski, JJ.

20100319

© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.