People v. Pruchnicki

• Decision Date: 11 June 2010
• Citation: 902 N.Y.S.2d 752,74 A.D.3d 1820
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Daniel PRUCHNICKI, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

902 N.Y.S.2d 752
74 A.D.3d 1820

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Daniel PRUCHNICKI, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

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

June 11, 2010.

902 N.Y.S.2d 753

Shaw & Shaw, P.C., Hamburg (James M. Shaw of Counsel), for Defendant-Appellant.

Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Matthew B. Powers of Counsel), for Respondent.

PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, CARNI, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

74 A.D.3d 1820

Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a nonjury verdict of, inter alia, one count of attempted rape in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 130.35[1] ) and two counts of

902 N.Y.S.2d 754

sexual abuse in the first degree (§ 130.65[1] ). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes in this nonjury trial ( see People v. Danielson, 9 N.Y.3d 342, 349, 849 N.Y.S.2d 480, 880 N.E.2d 1), we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence ( see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672). "Where, as here, witness credibility is of paramount importance to the determination of guilt or innocence, the appellate court must give '[g]reat deference ... [to the] fact-finder's*A.D.3d1821 opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony and observe demeanor' " ( People v. Harris, 15 A.D.3d 966, 967, 788 N.Y.S.2d 745, lv. denied 4 N.Y.3d 831, 796 N.Y.S.2d 586, 829 N.E.2d 679, quoting Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).

Contrary to the contention of defendant, Supreme Court did not violate his constitutional right of confrontation by improperly curtailing his cross-examination of the victim concerning her possible motivation to lie ( see generally People v. Chin, 67 N.Y.2d 22, 27-29, 499 N.Y.S.2d 638, 490 N.E.2d 505). The court permitted defendant to inquire whether the victim knew before the incident in question that she was the subject of a Child Protective Services (CPS) investigation and whether the victim had previously stated that her allegations were made in retaliation for that investigation. Inasmuch as defendant was afforded an opportunity to explore the victim's alleged bias or interest, there was no infringement of the right of confrontation ( see People v. Valentine, 48 A.D.3d 1268, 1269, 852 N.Y.S.2d 525, lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 871, 860 N.Y.S.2d 498, 890 N.E.2d 261). The court also properly permitted the People to present the limited testimony of a CPS caseworker to rebut defendant's testimony that the victim was aware of the CPS investigation prior to reporting the sexual assault ( see People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 248, 525 N.Y.S.2d 7, 519 N.E.2d 808).

We reject defendant's further contention that the court erred in admitting in evidence the testimony of the sister of the victim with respect to the victim's disclosure to her of the attempted rape. "...