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. Shaulov

Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

June 12, 2013

The People of the State of New York, respondent,
v.
Boris Shaulov, appellant. Ind. No. 10771/09

Stuart D. Rubin, Brooklyn, N.Y., for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Anthea H. Bruffee, and Bruce Alderman of counsel), for respondent.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., L. PRISCILLA HALL, JEFFREY A. COHEN, ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Guzman, J.), rendered March 27, 2012, convicting him of rape in the third degree (two counts), criminal sexual act in the third degree, endangering the welfare of a child, and sexual abuse in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant received the effective assistance of counsel under both the state constitutional standard (see People v Williams, 8 N.Y.3d 854, 855-856; People v Caban, 5 N.Y.3d 143, 152; People v Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712; People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147; People v West, 105 A.D.3d 781) and the federal constitutional standard (see Strickland v Washington, 466 U.S. 668).

The defendant's contention that his right to confrontation was violated (see Crawford v Washington, 541 U.S. 36) is not preserved for appellate review (see People v Fleming, 70 N.Y.2d 947; People v Marino, 21 A.D.3d 430, 431; see also People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 400) and, in any event, is without merit (see Davis v Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 821; Crawford v Washington, 541 U.S. at 53-54).

"The decision to declare a mistrial rests within the sound discretion of the trial court, which is in the best position to determine if this drastic remedy is truly necessary to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial" (People v Way, 69 A.D.3d 964, 965). Here, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for a mistrial on the ground of unfair surprise.

The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d at 400; People v Malave, 7 A.D.3d 542) and, in any event, are without merit (see People v Spicola, 16 N.Y.3d 441, 462-463, 465; People v Carroll, 95 N.Y.2d 375, 387; People v Rosario, 100 A.D.3d 660; People v Terry, 85 A.D.3d 1485, 1488).

RIVERA, J.P., HALL, COHEN and MILLER, JJ., concur.


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.