People v. Burgess

• Decision Date: 21 February 1995
• Citation: 623 N.Y.S.2d 150,212 A.D.2d 721
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Edward BURGESS, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 150

623 N.Y.S.2d 150

212 A.D.2d 721

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Edward BURGESS, Appellant.

Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department.

Feb. 21, 1995.

Richard L. Herzfeld, New York City, for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Roseann B. MacKechnie and Sholom J. Twersky, of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Beldock, J.), rendered April 22, 1991, convicting him of rape in the second degree (two counts), sexual abuse in the first degree, sexual abuse in the second degree (twelve counts), and endangering the welfare of a child (four counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

There is no merit to the defendant's contention that the expert testimony of child sexual-abuse trauma syndrome was inadmissible, as this testimony helped to explain the four complainants' behavior towards the defendant after the attacks, which was not within the purview of the average juror (see, People v. Taylor, 75 N.Y.2d 277, 552 N.Y.S.2d 883, 552 N.E.2d 131; People v. Naranjo, 194 A.D.2d 747, 600 N.Y.S.2d 81; People v. Guce, 164 A.D.2d 946, 560 N.Y.S.2d 53; cf., People v. Singh, 186 A.D.2d 285, 588 N.Y.S.2d 573).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or do not warrant reversal in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt.

MANGANO, P.J., and BRACKEN, ALTMAN and GOLDSTEIN, JJ., concur.