People v Valencia-Noralez, 2015 NY Slip Op 03389 [127 AD3d 1113]
April 22, 2015
Appellate Division, Second Department
[*1]
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v
Keller Valencia-Noralez, Appellant.
Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (Kirk R. Brandt of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Glenn Green of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Kahn, J.), rendered October 28, 2011, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant’s challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins , 11 NY3d 484 , 492 [2008]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes , 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson , 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor ( see People v Mateo , 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]; People v Bleakley , 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Romero , 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant contends that the admission into evidence of a photograph taken after his arrest was improper. However, the defendant has failed to preserve this contention for appellate review, as no objection was made to the admission of the photograph ( see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray , 86 NY2d 10, 19-21 [1995]; People v Fray , 258 AD2d 529, 529-530 [1999]). In any event, the photograph was properly admitted into evidence, as it was relevant under the circumstances and did not prejudice the defendant ( see People v Logan , 25 NY2d 184, 195-196 [1969]; People v Hicks , 84 AD3d 1402 , 1403 [2011]).
The defendant also failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the County Court improperly permitted a sexual assault nurse examiner to testify that her observations of the complainant’s injuries were consistent with injuries that could be caused by fingernails similar to those of the defendant ( see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray , 86 NY2d at 19-21). In any event, the testimony did not, as the defendant urges, improperly bolster the complainant’s credibility or impinge upon the jury’s right to determine his guilt ( see People v Ocampo , 52 AD3d 741 , 742 [2008]; People v Rogers , 8 AD3d 888 , 892 [2004]; People v Harris , 249 AD2d 775 [1998]). [*2] The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte , 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Eng, P.J., Austin, Cohen and Barros, JJ., concur..