Opinion
1998-02316
Submitted February 4, 2002.
February 25, 2002.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bruno, J.), rendered February 24, 1998, convicting him of sexual abuse in the second degree (two counts), sexual abuse in the third degree, and endangering the welfare of a child (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Andrew C. Fine, New York, N.Y. (Gautam A. Rana of counsel), for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Caroline R. Donhauser, and Laurie I. Moroff of counsel), for respondent.
Before: SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of sexual abuse in the second degree and sexual abuse in the third degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt of those crimes was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
Furthermore, the trial court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for a mistrial based upon the brief references to his criminal record and prior incarceration made by the 15-year-old complainant. Although a curative instruction would have been appropriate to alleviate any potential prejudice (see, People v. Singletary, 270 A.D.2d 903; People v. Pought, 154 A.D.2d 628), the defense counsel declined the court's offer of this less drastic remedy (see, People v. Young, 48 N.Y.2d 995, 996; People v. Wolf, 284 A.D.2d 102; People v. Brown, 194 A.D.2d 682). In any event, the references to the defendant's criminal history were harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of his guilt (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241-242; People v. Boose, 234 A.D.2d 911; People v. Vance, 218 A.D.2d 765).
The defendant's contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel is without merit. Considering the totality of the circumstances existing at the time of representation, counsel provided the defendant with meaningful representation (see, People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review.
FEUERSTEIN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, SCHMIDT and COZIER, JJ., concur.