People v. Delatorres
825 N.Y.S.2d 614
N.Y. App. Div.
2006
Check Treatment

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v LUIS DELATORRES, Appellant.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

825 N.Y.S.2d 614

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (John J. Connell, J.), rendered April 25, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of rape in the first degree, rape in the second degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, sexual abuse in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of, inter alia, rape in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.35 [1]) arising from his sexual contact with his girlfriend’s 13-year-old daughter. Defendant did not move to suppress the statements that he made to the police at the time of his arrest and therefore failed to preserve for our review his present contention that he did not waive his Miranda rights before making the statements and thus that the statements were involuntarily made (see generally , affd , cert denied ; , lv denied ).

Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contention that the prosecutor violated his right to discovery pursuant to CPL 240.20 inasmuch as he did not object to the allegedly untimely disclosure of certain recordings on the specific grounds raised on appeal (see generally ; , lv denied ). In any event, defendant failed to establish that the People violated CPL 240.20 and, even assuming, arguendo, that there was a violation, we conclude that reversal based on that alleged violation would not be required. “The People’s delay in complying with the provisions of CPL 240.20 constitutes reversible error . . . only when the delay substantially prejudices defendant,” and here defendant failed to establish that he was ” “substantially prejudice[d]” by the alleged delay (, lv denied ; see also , lv denied ; , lv denied ).

Defendant failed to preserve for our review his further contention that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence inasmuch as he failed to renew his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence after presenting evidence (see , rearg denied ; ). In any event, the evidence is legally sufficient to support the conviction and, contrary to defendant’s further contention, the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see generally ). “The credibility of the victim and the weight to be accorded her testimony were mat-ters for the jury” (, lv denied ; see , lv denied ). Present—Hurlbutt, A.P.J., Gorski, Smith and Centra, JJ.