People v. Mountzouros
Docket 239 KA 23-00808
Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research
- Filed
- Jurisdiction
- New York
- Court
- Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- Type
- Opinion
- Case type
- Criminal Appeal
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Citation
- 2026 NY Slip Op 02555
- Docket
- 239 KA 23-00808
Appeal from a judgment of conviction following a jury trial in Livingston County Court
Summary
The Appellate Division, Fourth Department affirmed defendant Kenneth T. Mountzouros's convictions (jury verdict) for sexual abuse in the first and second degrees and two counts of forcible touching. The court rejected challenges that the indictment was duplicitous, that the first-count time frame rendered it defective, and that the court erred by admitting victim testimony about uncharged acts and expert testimony about child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome. Several preservation failures also prevented review of other claims. The court noted the Livingston County District Attorney failed to file an opposing brief on appeal.
Issues Decided
- Whether the People's pretrial Molineux motion amounted to a concession that the indictment was facially duplicitous
- Whether the time period alleged in count 1 rendered the sexual-abuse-in-the-first-degree count defective
- Whether the court erred in admitting victim testimony regarding uncharged acts and in admitting CSAAS expert testimony
- Whether certain jury voir dire comments required a new trial or corrective instruction
Court's Reasoning
The court explained that a Molineux motion concerns admission of evidence of uncharged crimes and does not concede that an indictment is duplicitous, which occurs when a single count charges more than one offense. Count 1 specifically named the offense and alleged the victim was under 13, so inclusion of dates extending beyond that age did not negate the allegation. Victim testimony about uncharged acts was admissible to complete the narrative and provide background, and CSAAS expert testimony is permissible to explain delayed disclosure by child victims. Several challenges were unpreserved, barring appellate review.
Authorities Cited
- People v Allen24 NY3d 441 (2014)
- People v Telfair41 NY3d 107 (2023)
- People v Nicholson26 NY3d 813 (2016)
Parties
- Appellant
- Kenneth T. Mountzouros
- Respondent
- The People of the State of New York
- Judge
- Kevin Van Allen
- Attorney
- Alan P. Reed
Key Dates
- Decision date
- 2026-04-24
- Judgment rendered
- 2023-04-18
What You Should Do Next
- 1
Consider seeking leave to the Court of Appeals
If counsel believes there are substantial legal issues of state-wide importance or preserved constitutional claims, file an application for permission to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals within the applicable deadline.
- 2
Explore postconviction remedies
If there are unpreserved claims involving ineffective assistance of counsel or new evidence, investigate and, if appropriate, prepare a motion under CPL article 440 for collateral relief.
- 3
Consult appellate counsel
Discuss with an experienced appellate attorney whether any discretionary appellate or postconviction options remain and evaluate chances of success and timing.
Frequently Asked Questions
- What did the court decide?
- The appellate court affirmed the convictions for sexual abuse and forcible touching and rejected the defendant's challenges to the indictment, evidence admission, and jury instructions.
- Who is affected by this decision?
- The defendant (Mountzouros), the victim, and the People (prosecution) are directly affected; the conviction stands and any sentencing or collateral consequences remain in place.
- What happens next after this decision?
- Because the Appellate Division affirmed, the defendant may consider seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals if grounds exist, or pursue postconviction relief where appropriate.
- Did the prosecutor do anything wrong on appeal?
- The opinion notes the Livingston County District Attorney failed to file a brief opposing the appeal, which the court said was a failure of duty, but the lack of a brief did not change the outcome here.
The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.
Full Filing Text
People v Mountzouros - 2026 NY Slip Op 02555 People v Mountzouros 2026 NY Slip Op 02555 April 24, 2026 Appellate Division, Fourth Department THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v KENNETH T. MOUNTZOUROS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department Decided on April 24, 2026 239 KA 23-00808 Present: Whalen, P.J., Bannister, Smith, Nowak, And Delconte, JJ. ALAN P. REED, BATH, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. Appeal from a judgment of the Livingston County Court (Kevin Van Allen, J.), rendered April 18, 2023. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of sexual abuse in the first degree, sexual abuse in the second degree, and forcible touching (two counts). 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 one count each of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65 [4]) and sexual abuse in the second degree (§ 130.60 [2]) and two counts of forcible touching (§ 130.52 [1]). We affirm. Defendant contends that the People's pretrial motion seeking to introduce certain uncharged incidents of sexual abuse committed by defendant against the victim as Molineux evidence was an effective concession by the People that the indictment was facially duplicitous. We reject that contention. "An indictment is duplicitous when a single count charges more than one offense" ( People v Allen , 24 NY3d 441, 448 [2014] [internal quotation marks omitted and emphasis added]). Molineux evidence, conversely, regards a defendant's uncharged crimes or bad acts, admitted under an exception to the general rule prohibiting such proof ( see People v Telfair , 41 NY3d 107, 114 [2023]). Thus, the People's attempt to introduce uncharged acts of sexual abuse as Molineux evidence did not reflect—or, as defendant contends, effectively result in a concession—that the indictment was facially duplicitous. To the extent that defendant raises other contentions regarding the alleged duplicity of the indictment, defendant failed to preserve those contentions for our review ( see generally Allen , 24 NY3d at 449-450; People v Woods , 221 AD3d 1415, 1416 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 40 NY3d 1095 [2024]). To the extent that defendant contends that the time period alleged in count 1 of the indictment, which charged him with sexual abuse in the first degree, rendered that count defective and subject to dismissal because it included a time period after which the subject child turned 13 years old, we conclude that the contention lacks merit ( see People v Carter , 147 AD3d 1514, 1515 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1030 [2017]). Count 1 charged defendant with sexual abuse in the first degree by name, with reference to the relevant section of the Penal Law as well as the relevant subdivision containing the age element ( see id. ). In addition, count 1 specifically alleged that defendant committed the act against a child who was, at the time, less than 13 years old, and that allegation was not negated by inclusion of a period of time when the victim was 13 years of age or older ( see id. ). We likewise reject defendant's contention that County Court erred in admitting in evidence the testimony of the victim regarding uncharged sexual abuse by defendant. Such evidence was admissible in this case "to complete the narrative of the events charged in the indictment . . . , and it also provided necessary background information" ( People v Workman , 56 AD3d 1155, 1156 [4th Dept 2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 789 [2009] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Bailey , 239 AD3d 1375, 1375-1376 [4th Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 1009 [2025]; People v Caballero , 199 AD3d 1468, 1470 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 38 NY3d 926 [2022], reconsideration denied 38 NY3d 949 [2022]). To the extent that defendant contends that the court's instructions to the jury regarding the Molineux evidence were inadequate, defendant failed to preserve that contention for our review ( see generally People v Hildreth , 199 AD3d 1366, 1368 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 1161 [2022]). Defendant next contends that he was denied a fair trial when the court provided an allegedly insufficient instruction in response to a prospective juror's comments during voir dire that allegedly tainted certain seated jurors and the pool of prospective jurors. By failing to object to the content of the court's instruction, however, defendant failed to preserve that issue for our review ( see generally People v Gaiter , 224 AD3d 1384, 1384 [4th Dept 2024], lv denied 41 NY3d 1018 [2024], reconsideration denied 42 NY3d 970 [2024]; People v Hall , 194 AD3d 1372, 1373 [4th Dept 2021], lv denied 37 NY3d 972 [2021]; People v Standsblack , 162 AD3d 1523, 1527 [4th Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1008 [2018]). Defendant further contends that the court erred in permitting the People to elicit testimony from an expert regarding child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome (CSAAS). Contrary to defendant's contention, however, such testimony is admissible to explain to a jury why a child victim might, as did the victim in this case, delay in disclosing sexual abuse ( see People v Nicholson , 26 NY3d 813, 828 [2016]; People v Williams , 20 NY3d 579, 584 [2013]; People v Young , 206 AD3d 1631, 1632 [4th Dept 2022]). To the extent that defendant contends that answers given during voir dire established that this particular jury panel did not require CSAAS testimony, the record of jury voir dire does not support defendant's contention ( see Nicholson , 26 NY3d at 828-829). Defendant's contention regarding the legal sufficiency of the evidence is not preserved for our review inasmuch as defendant made only a general motion for a trial order of dismissal ( see People v Fowler , 239 AD3d 1444, 1444 [4th Dept 2025], lv denied 44 NY3d 1011 [2025]; see generally People v Gray , 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). Finally, although we conclude that defendant has raised no issue warranting reversal or modification of the judgment, we note that the Livingston County District Attorney failed to file a brief in opposition to this appeal and therefore failed "to perform [her] duty to the people of [her] county" ( People v Maull , 218 AD3d 1236, 1243 [4th Dept 2023] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Coger , 2 AD3d 1279, 1280 [4th Dept 2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 738 [2004]). The District Attorney is obligated to file a brief in opposition "unless the appeal is from a judgment which [s]he concedes should be reversed" ( Coger , 2 AD3d at 1280 [internal quotation marks omitted]). No such concession has been made in this case. Entered: April 24, 2026 Ann Dillon Flynn