Opinion
KA 03-01701.
October 1, 2004.
Appeal from a judgment of the Livingston County Court (Gerard J. Alonzo, Jr., J.), rendered May 8, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of sodomy in the second degree (eight counts).
Before: Pigott, Jr., P.J., Gorski, Martoche and Hayes, JJ.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him following a jury trial of eight counts of sodomy in the second degree (Penal Law former § 130.45 [1]). Contrary to defendant's contention, County Court properly admitted expert testimony concerning child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome for the purpose of explaining why a child might not immediately report an incident of abuse ( see People v. Carroll, 95 NY2d 375, 387). Also contrary to defendant's contention, "a Frye hearing was unnecessary because the expert testimony did not involve novel scientific evidence" ( People v. Middlebrooks, 300 AD2d 1142, 1143, lv denied 99 NY2d 630; see generally People v. Gillard, 7 AD3d 540; People v. Doherty, 305 AD2d 867, lv denied 100 NY2d 580; People v. Miles, 294 AD2d 930, lv denied 98 NY2d 678). Furthermore, we conclude that the expert testimony was properly admitted during the People's case-in-chief and prior to the testimony of the complainant in order "to set the stage before [she] testifie[d]" ( People v. Parks, 41 NY2d 36, 49).
Defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is not preserved for our review ( see People v. Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19). Contrary to defendant's further contentions, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495) and the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. We have reviewed defendant's remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit.