People v. Abuziyad
136 A.D.3d 837
N.Y. App. Div.
2016
Check Treatment

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v RAMI ABUZIYAD, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York

24 N.Y.S.3d 516

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ozzi, J.), rendered November 15, 2012, convicting him of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant‘s challenge to the Supreme Court‘s Sandoval ruling (see

) is only partially preserved for appellate review (see
;
) and, in any event, is without merit.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that his right to confrontation (see US Const Sixth Amend) was violated when two DNA profile reports and a DNA comparison chart generated by the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner of the City of New York (hereinafter the OCME) were admitted into evidence through the testimony of a DNA analyst employed by the OCME. In any event, the defendant‘s contention is without merit. The two DNA profile reports were not “testimonial” in nature (

) because they consisted of “merely raw data that, standing alone, did not link the defendant to the crime” (
; see
;
). Accordingly, the admission of these DNA profile reports through the testimony of an OCME analyst did not violate the defendant‘s right to confrontation (see
;
). Moreover, the defendant‘s right to confrontation also was not violated by the admission of the DNA comparison chart. While the chart directly linked the defendant to DNA evidence recovered at the crime scene, the OCME analyst who created the DNA profiles contained in the chart testified and was subject to cross-examination at trial (see
).

Finally, defense counsel‘s failure to object to the admission of the DNA profile reports and DNA comparison chart did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel (see

). Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Roman and Sgroi, JJ., concur.