Chinese Staff & Workers' Ass'n v. Burden
Annotate this CaseAt issue in this case was a rezoning proposal for Sunset Park, a predominantly residential neighborhood in Brooklyn. Following public hearings, the Department of City Planning (DCP), the lead agency here, prepared an environmental assessment statement (EAS) and issued a negative declaration, concluding that the proposed rezoning would not have an adverse impact on the environment. Petitioners sought to annul the negative declaration on the ground that DCP's environmental review of the proposed rezoning was not in compliance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review rules. Supreme Court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. The appellate division affirmed. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that DCP neither abused its discretion nor was arbitrary or capricious when it issued its negative declaration because in its EAS the DCP identified the relevant areas of environmental concern, took a hard look at them, and made a reasoned elaboration of the basis for its determination.
Decided on June 26, 2013
No. 124
[*1]The People & c., Respondent,
v
Isidoro Marra, Appellant.
Salvatore D. Ferlazzo, for appellant.
Jeffrey S. Carpenter, for respondent.
MEMORANDUM:
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant Isidoro Marra was convicted by jury verdict of first-degree rape (Penal [*2]Law § 130.35 [2] [engaging in sexual intercourse with a person incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless]). The trial judge sentenced him to a determinate term of imprisonment of 18 years followed by 15 years of postrelease supervision, and imposed a 20-year order of protection. Observing that the case "turned largely upon the credibility of the victim, and the jury evidently believed the victim's testimony that defendant inserted his penis into her vagina without her consent while she was asleep," the Appellate Division declined to substitute its credibility determinations for the jury's and held that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (96 AD3d 1623, 1625 [4th Dept 2012]). Additionally, the court rejected defendant's claims of evidentiary error and prosecutorial misconduct as unpreserved and, in any event, without merit. But "in light of [defendant's] age, his lack of a prior criminal record and other mitigating circumstances," the Appellate Division modified the judgment by reducing defendant's sentence to a determinate term of imprisonment of 10 years plus a five-year period of posterelease supervision (id. at 1627). A Judge of this Court granted defendant leave to appeal (19 NY3d 998 [2012]), and we now affirm.
Defendant objects to the trial judge's decision to admit seven photographs taken of the victim at the hospital where she was examined after calling 911 to report a rape. These photographs depict red marks and bruises on her body. As an initial matter, we conclude that defendant preserved the objections he makes on appeal to the admission of these photographs into evidence. The transcript of the hearing on defendant's motion in limine shows that the trial judge considered whether the photographs were properly authenticated, relevant and not unduly prejudicial. We cannot say the judge abused his discretion by allowing the photographs into evidence in view of the circumstances of this case, including the People's theory of physical helplessness. Finally, we conclude that defense counsel's alleged failings, such as his neglect to object to the prosecutor's comment in summation about condom use, did not amount to ineffective assistance of counsel, and that defendant received meaningful representation.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Order affirmed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott, Rivera and Abdus-Salaam concur.
Decided June 26, 2013
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
