Suffolk County Legal Aid Society (Amanda E. Schaefer of counsel) for appellant. Suffolk County District Attorney (Pilar O'Rourke of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Justice Court of the Town of Riverhead, Suffolk County (Lori M. Hulse, J.), rendered January 3, 2024. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of public lewdness, and imposed sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of public lewdness (Penal Law § 245.00) and sentenced to a term of three years' probation and a fine. On appeal, defendant argues that his conviction was not supported by legally sufficient evidence and was against the weight of the evidence; that his constitutional rights to a fair trial and to present a defense were violated when the Justice Court precluded him from calling an investigator to testify regarding the existence of surveillance cameras around the incident location; that the Justice Court improperly denied defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 245.80 to preclude the testimony of an allegedly belatedly disclosed prosecution witness; and that the sentence of three years' probation is excessive and should be reduced in the interest of justice.

"[W]here[, as here,] the trial court reserves decision on a defendant's motion to dismiss [made at the close of the People's case], the preservation rules do not bar review of defendant's claim" (People v Nicholson, 26 NY3d 813, 830 [2016]; see People v Payne, 3 NY3d 266, 273 [2004], abrogated on other grounds by People v Feingold, 7 NY3d 288 [2006]). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v Dubarry, 25 NY3d 161, 178 [2015]; People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]) and indulging in all reasonable inferences in the People's favor (see People v Gordon, 23 NY3d 643, 649 [2014]; People v Delamota, 18 NY3d 107, 113 [2011]), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, defendant's guilt of public lewdness (see People v Conde, 46 Misc 3d 142[A], 2015 NY Slip Op 50172[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2015]; People v Dolan, [*2]34 Misc 3d 159[A], 2012 NY Slip Op 50442[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2012]). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348-349 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear their testimony, observe their demeanor, and assess their credibility (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 644 [2006]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon a review of the record, and particularly the consistent testimony of the two eyewitnesses to the incident who both clearly viewed defendant's lewd act in a public place, we find no basis to disturb the jury's credibility determinations and, as a result, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Tawfiles, 83 Misc 3d 127[A], 2024 NY Slip Op 50734[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2024]; People v Chang-Correa, 53 Misc 3d 126[A], 2016 NY Slip Op 51311[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2016]).

While the right to present a defense is fundamental (see Crane v Kentucky, 476 US 683, 690 [1986]; People v Dixon, 42 NY3d 609, 616 [2024]), it is "not absolute" (People v Williams, 81 NY2d 303, 313 [1993]; see People v Hayes, 17 NY3d 46, 53 [2011]), and is subject to "the legitimate demands of the adversarial system" (People v Williams, 81 NY2d at 313 [internal quotation marks omitted]). " 'It is well established that the trial courts have broad discretion to keep the proceedings within manageable limits' " (People v Spencer, 20 NY3d 954, 956 [2012], quoting People v Hudy, 73 NY2d 40, 56 [1988]), and a court "has wide latitude to exclude evidence that is repetitive, is only marginally relevant, or poses an undue risk of confusion of the issues" (People v Jack, 149 AD3d 779, 780 [2017]; see People v Bowen, 67 AD3d 1022, 1023 [2009]).

As defendant offered no objection on constitutional grounds to the court's ruling excluding his witness, his present claims on those grounds are not preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Lane, 7 NY3d 888, 889 [2006]; People v Brown, 220 AD3d 802, 803 [2023]; People v Schindler, 27 Misc 3d 127[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 50578[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2010]). In any event, it cannot be said that the trial court improvidently exercised its discretion in precluding the witness, as " 'there was a complete failure to demonstrate any relevance' with regard to [the witness's] proposed testimony" (People v Li, 207 AD3d 566, 570 [2022], quoting People v Billups, 132 AD2d 612, 613 [1987]; see People v Black, 90 AD3d 1066, 1067 [2011]; People v Schindler, 2010 NY Slip Op 50578[U], *2).

To the extent that the People violated their discovery obligations by belatedly disclosing the identity of a witness to the incident, defendant failed to show any prejudice from this alleged failure (see CPL 245.80 [1] [a]) and, thus, he was not entitled to any remedy (see People v Sheard, 236 AD3d 826, 827 [2025]; People v Ramjattan, 219 AD3d 1348, 1351 [2023]; People v Jackson, 77 Misc 3d 138[A], 2022 NY Slip Op 51362[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2022]; People v Jateen, 74 Misc 3d 134[A], 2022 NY Slip Op 50280[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2022]).

Contrary to defendant's final contention, the sentence imposed was not unduly harsh or severe (see People v George, 237 AD3d 971, 973 [2025]; People v Trent, 236 AD3d 1068, 1069 [2025]; see generally CPL 470.15 [6] [b]; People v Brisman, — NY3d —, 2025 NY Slip Op 00123 [2025]). We note that defendant retains the right to apply to the Justice Court to modify the length and conditions of his probation (see CPL 410.20 [1]; People v Pagan, 19 NY3d 368, [*3]371 [2012]; People v Nuwesra, 65 Misc 3d 131[A], 2019 NY Slip Op 51570[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2019]; People v Barnes, 32 Misc 3d 134[A], 2011 NY Slip Op 51454[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 9th & 10th Jud Dists 2011]).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

GARGUILO, P.J., DRISCOLL and GOLDBERG-VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.