THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK RESPONDENT v. STEVEN BURR DEFENDANT APPELLANT (2026)

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon a jury verdict, of predatory sexual assault against a child (Penal Law former § 130.96) and sexual abuse in the first degree (§ 130.65 [3]).

Contrary to defendant's contention, we conclude that Supreme Court properly allowed expert testimony on child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome (CSAAS) and that it properly denied defendant's request for a Frye hearing with respect to CSAAS (see People v Austen, 197 AD3d 861, 862 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 1095 [2021]; People v Bassett, 55 AD3d 1434, 1436-1437 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 922 [2009]; see also People v Wallace, 60 AD3d 1268, 1270-1271 [4th Dept 2009], lv denied 12 NY3d 922 [2009]; see generally People v Williams, 35 NY3d 24, 37-38 [2020]).

Defendant contends that the court erred in admitting certain Molineux evidence. Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention with respect to the evidence concerning child protective services investigations (see People v Sawyer, 242 AD3d 1541, 1541 [4th Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 1054 [2025]). As to the evidence that defendant inflicted corporal punishment on his children, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion because the evidence in question had substantial probative value with respect to issues other than criminal propensity and its probative value outweighed the danger of undue prejudice to defendant, and that the court's instructions mitigated any potential prejudice (see People v Matthews, 142 AD3d 1354, 1355-1356 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1125 [2016]; see also People v Smith, 224 AD3d 1221, 1221-1222 [4th Dept 2024], lv denied 41 NY3d 985 [2024]). We further conclude that the court properly admitted certain testimony of the victim's brother, because that testimony explained the nature of the relationship between defendant and the victim (see People v Redfield, 144 AD3d 1548, 1549-1550 [4th Dept 2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1187 [2017]; People v Maxey, 129 AD3d 1664, 1665 [4th Dept 2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 1002 [2016], reconsideration denied 28 NY3d 933 [2016]), and that the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that the probative worth of that testimony outweighed the danger of unfair prejudice to defendant (see Redfield, 144 AD3d at 1550).

Next, we conclude that defendant did not preserve for our review his contention that the court violated his constitutional right to present a defense (see People v Harris, 229 AD3d 1055, 1056 [4th Dept 2024], lv denied 42 NY3d 971 [2024]; see also People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 889 [2006]). We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).

Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crimes as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we reject defendant's contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).

The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

We have reviewed defendant's remaining contention and conclude that it does not warrant modification or reversal of the judgment.

Entered: July 24, 2026

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court