Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant was convicted of rape in the second degree, sodomy in the second degree, sexual abuse in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child. The victim, an 11-year-old girl, testified that defendant forcibly led her to an empty garage behind his home. He then raped and sodomized her.
Defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting expert testimony on the subject of rape trauma syndrome. We disagree. Expert opinions are admissible on subjects involving professional or scientific knowledge or skill not within the ordinary training and intelligence of the average juror (see, Matter of Nicole V., 71 N.Y.2d 112, 120; De Long v County of Erie, 60 N.Y.2d 296). The courts of this State have become increasingly more receptive to the admission of expert testimony regarding behavioral responses and reactions not usually comprehended by the average juror (see, e.g., Matter of Nicole V., supra, at 120 [sexual abuse by parent]; People v Aphaylath, 68 N.Y.2d 945, rearg dismissed 69 N.Y.2d 724 [stress and disorientation suffered by Laotian refugees assimilating into American culture]; People v Keindl, 68 N.Y.2d 410, rearg denied 69 N.Y.2d 823 [psychological reactions of sexually abused child]; People v Henson, 33 N.Y.2d 63 [battered child syndrome]; People v Whitehead, 142 A.D.2d 745 [rape trauma syndrome]; People v Drake, 129 A.D.2d 963, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 895 [criminal psychological profiling involving the realization of sexual satisfaction from penetrating a victim by sniper activity or by stab or bite wounds]; People v Fisher, 73 A.D.2d 886, affd 53 N.Y.2d 907 [phenomenon of repression]; People v Torres, 128 Misc.2d 129 [shaken baby syndrome]; People v Reid, 123 Misc.2d 1084 [rape trauma syndrome]). Here, the expert was not asked whether he believed the victim but was asked only to describe to the jury the symptoms of the syndrome and to express his opinion whether the victim suffered from rape trauma syndrome (People v Parks, 41 N.Y.2d 36; People v Reid, supra, at 1087). Defendant had a full and fair opportunity to cross-examine the People's expert and to present opposing views and the trial court properly charged the jurors that they could accept or reject the expert testimony in whole or in part (see, People v Drake, supra, at 965).
We reject defendant's contention that the verdict was contrary to the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495).
We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be lacking in merit.