People v. Merriman

• Citation: 212 A.D.3d 845,180 N.Y.S.3d 544 (Mem)
• Decision Date: 25 January 2023
• Docket Number: 2019–00949,Ind. No. 1768/16
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Gerry MERRIMAN, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

212 A.D.3d 845

180 N.Y.S.3d 544 (Mem)

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,

v.Gerry MERRIMAN, appellant.

2019–00949

Ind. No. 1768/16

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

Argued—January 3, 2023

January 25, 2023

Konta Georges & Bruza, P.C., New York, NY (Robert W. Georges of counsel), for appellant.

Anne T. Donnelly, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Tammy J. Smiley and Jason R. Richards of counsel), for respondent.

FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P., ROBERT J. MILLER, PAUL WOOTEN, LILLIAN WAN, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Robert A. McDonald, J.), rendered December 14, 2018, convicting him of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly precluded defense counsel from questioning the complainant about a prior allegation of sexual misconduct made by the complainant. The defendant failed to make a showing that the prior allegation bore a significant probative relation to the crimes charged against him (see CPL 60.42[5] ; People v. Mandel, 48 N.Y.2d 952, 953, 425 N.Y.S.2d 63, 401 N.E.2d 185 ; People v. Piedra, 87 A.D.3d 706, 706, 928 N.Y.S.2d 752 ). The court also did not otherwise err in limiting the scope of cross-examination (see People v. Corby, 6 N.Y.3d 231, 234, 811 N.Y.S.2d 613, 844 N.E.2d 1135 ).

The defendant contends that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct by proffering false testimony (see People v. Colon, 13 N.Y.3d 343, 349, 890 N.Y.S.2d 424, 918 N.E.2d 936 ). However, the record does not demonstrate that the People proffered false testimony.

The defendant's contention that certain records should have been admitted into evidence at trial is without merit.

The defendant's remaining contentions are improperly raised for the first time in his reply brief (see People v. Baker, 205 A.D.3d 815, 818, 167 N.Y.S.3d 550 ; People v. Baggett, 202 A.D.3d 812, 813, 158 N.Y.S.3d 846 ).

CONNOLLY, J.P., MILLER, WOOTEN and WAN, JJ., concur.