| People v Jean-Laurent |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 04542 [51 AD3d 818] |
| May 13, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Phillip Jean-Laurent, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Ellen C.Abbot, Jessica L. Melton, Sharon Y. Brodt, and Rebecca Height of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (McGann,J.), rendered June 1, 2005, convicting him of assault in the second degree, criminal possession ofa weapon in the fourth degree, criminal contempt in the second degree (four counts), andendangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the trial court erred in permitting an emergency medicaltechnician (hereinafter EMT) to testify as to matters claimed to be beyond her scope of expertiseis unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]; People vTevaha, 84 NY2d 879 [1994]; People v Nelson, 22 AD3d 769, 770 [2005]; People v Mack,301 AD2d 863 [2003]; People v Paun, 269 AD2d 546 [2000]). In any event, the trialcourt properly determined that the EMT was qualified to render an opinion that the complainant'sinjuries were caused by two blows from a blunt instrument. "Practical experience may properlysubstitute for academic training in determining whether an individual has acquired the trainingnecessary to be qualified as an expert" (People v Donaldson, 107 AD2d 758, 759 [1985];see People v Paun, 269 AD2d 546 [2000]; People v Rivera, 236 AD2d 428, 429[1997]; see also Meiselman v Crown Hgts. Hosp., 285 NY 389, 398 [1941]). Further, thetrial court was not required to formally declare or certify the witness to be an expert (see People v Wagner, 27 AD3d671, 672 [2006]).
The defendant received meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).[*2]
The defendant's remaining contentions, raised in hissupplemental pro se brief, are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Santucci, Balkin and Chambers, JJ.,concur.