| People v Phillips |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 09055 [45 AD3d 702] |
| November 13, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v DarylPhillips, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Anthea H. Bruffee,and James W. Halter of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brennan, J.),rendered July 22, 2004, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree, sexual abuse in the firstdegree (three counts), and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposingsentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We agree with the defendant that the Supreme Court should have instructed the jury todisregard certain testimony of the complainant's grandmother as prejudicial and nonresponsive.However, because the evidence of the defendant's guilt, without reference to the error, wasoverwhelming, and there is no reasonable possibility that the error might have contributed to thedefendant's conviction, this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see People vCrimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 243 [1975]; People v Rush, 44 AD3d 799 [2007]; People v Francois, 16 AD3d 699[2005]).
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the Supreme Courterred in admitting testimony of a "prompt outcry" of sexual abuse (People v Leveille, 12 AD3d 533[2004]; see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the court properly admitted the testimony intoevidence (see People v Shelton, 1NY3d 614 [2004]; People vLeveille, 12 AD3d 533 [2004]).[*2]
The defendant failed to object to those portions of theprosecutor's summation which he now challenges on appeal, and consequently, his contentions inthis regard are unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Tonge, 93 NY2d 838,839-840 [1999]; People v Woody, 9AD3d 439, 440 [2004]). In any event, the prosecutor's remarks were fair responses todefense counsel's statements in summation (see People v Shelton, 307 AD2d 370, 372[2003], affd 1 NY3d 614 [2004]; People v Ravenell, 307 AD2d 977, 978 [2003]).
The defendant's remaining contentions raised in his pro se supplemental brief are withoutmerit. Schmidt, J.P., Rivera, Santucci and Balkin, JJ., concur.