People v. Carfora
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
1Opinion of the Court
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the Supreme Court erred in admitting certain testimony of the mothers of the complaining witnesses (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Leveille, 12 AD3d 533 [2004]). In any event, the court properly admitted testimony of the mothers as a “prompt outcry” of sexual abuse (see People v Shelton, 1 NY3d 614 [2004]; People v Leveille, 12 AD3d at 533). The court also properly admitted into evidence testimony of the mothers regarding changes in the behavior of the victims following the abuse (see People v Groff, 71 NY2d 101, 110…
2Cases cited11 opinions
- People v. ContesNew York Court of Appeals · 1983
- People v. RomeroNew York Court of Appeals · 2006
- People v. HawkinsNew York Court of Appeals · 2008
- People v. CarrollNew York Court of Appeals · 2000
- People v. TaylorNew York Court of Appeals · 1990
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by7 opinions
- People v. LoMaglioAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- People v. RodriguezAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2012
- People v. YoungAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2014
- LOMAGLIO, MATTHEW L., PEOPLE vAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
- People v. LoMaglioAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 2015
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.