Kousouros, New York, NY, for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M.
Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Ellen C. Abbott, and Tina
Grillo of counsel), for respondent.
C. DILLON, J.P., SANDRA L. SGROI, SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX,
JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens
County (Lasak, J.), rendered June 3, 2015, convicting him of
predatory sexual assault against a child, course of sexual
conduct against a child in the first degree (two counts),
criminal contempt in the second degree, and endangering the
welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing
that the judgment is affirmed.
defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair
trial due to the Supreme Court's display of bias against
the defense and excessive interference is unpreserved for
appellate review (see CPL 470.05; People v
Prado, 4 N.Y.3d 725, 726; People v Charleston,
56 N.Y.2d 886, 887-888; People v Rivera, 125 A.D.3d
694, 695; People v Ojeda, 118 A.D.3d 919, 919). In
any event, the record does not support the defendant's
claims of bias or excessive interference (see People v
Arnold, 98 N.Y.2d 63, 67; People v Rivera, 125
A.D.3d at 695; People v Melendez, 31 A.D.3d 186,
defendant's contentions that the Supreme Court's
limitation of his cross-examination of the prosecution's
witnesses and preclusion of his sister as a defense witness
deprived him of his constitutional right to present a defense
are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event,
without merit (see CPL 470.05; People v
May, 138 A.D.3d 1024, 1026; People v Frazier,
125 A.D.3d 551, 551; People v Caldwell, 115 A.D.3d
870, 870; People v Strzelecki, 108 A.D.3d 644, 645).
defendant's contention that the Supreme Court deprived
him of his constitutional right to present a defense by
denying his application to allow a defense expert to testify
via Skype is unpreserved for appellate review (see
CPL 470.05). In any event, the court did not improvidently
exercise its discretion, as the defendant did not demonstrate
necessity (see People v Wrotten, 14 N.Y.3d 33, 40;
People v Towsley, 85 A.D.3d 1549, 1550).
defendant also failed to preserve for appellate review his
contention that testimony from the mother of one of the
complainants as to that complainant's disclosure of
sexual abuse constituted improper bolstering (see
CPL 470.05; People v Tucker, 117 A.D.3d 1090,
1090; People v Batista, 92 A.D.3d 793, 793). In any
event, the Supreme Court properly admitted the testimony, as
" nonspecific testimony about [a] child-victim's
reports of sexual abuse [does] not constitute improper
bolstering [when] offered for the relevant, nonhearsay
purpose of explaining the investigative process and
completing the narrative of events leading to the
defendant's arrest'" (People v Ludwig,
24 N.Y.3d 221, 231, quoting People v Rosario, 100
A.D.3d 660, 661; see People v Gross, 26 N.Y.3d 689,
694-695; People v Cullen, 24 N.Y.3d 1014, 1016).
defendant's contention that he was deprived of the
effective assistance of counsel is based, in part, on matter
appearing on the record and, in part, on matter outside the
record and, thus, constitutes a "mixed claim" of
ineffective assistance (People v Maxwell, 89 A.D.3d
1108, 1109; see People v Evans,16 N.Y.3d 571, 575 n
2). In this case, it is not evident from the matter appearing
on the record that the defendant was deprived of the
effective assistance of counsel (cf. People v Crump,53 N.Y.2d 824, 825; People v Brown,45 N.Y.2d 852,
853-854). As the defendant's claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel cannot be resolved without reference to
matter outside the record, a ...