| People v Crawford |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 07141 [54 AD3d 961] |
| September 23, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v JohnCrawford, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Ann Bordley ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.),rendered June 1, 2006, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict,and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that a detective's testimony consisted of inadmissible hearsaywhen he referred to a statement by the "victim's family" regarding information "from the streets"is without merit, because the testimony was not offered for its truth (see People v Tosca,98 NY2d 660, 661 [2002]; People vSmith, 27 AD3d 242, 243 [2006]). The defendant's remaining contentions regardingalleged hearsay errors are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, inany event, are without merit (see Peoplev South, 47 AD3d 734, 735 [2008]; People v Bryant, 39 AD3d 768 [2007]; People v Algarin, 15 AD3d 411,412 [2005]).
The defendant's contention that the same testimony violated his rights under theConfrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution is unpreservedfor appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Rush, 44 AD3d 799, 800 [2007]) and, in any event, iswithout merit (see People v South, 47 AD3d at 735; People v Johnson, 40 AD3d 1011, 1012 [2007]; People v Bryant, 39 AD3d 768[2007]).[*2]
The defendant's challenge to the prosecutor's questioningof the defense witness during cross-examination regarding a nontestifying witness' statement toan investigator does not warrant reversal because the trial court's actions were sufficient to avertany substantial prejudice to the defendant (see People v Daley, 50 AD3d 1051 [2008]). The defendant'sremaining claims of prosecutorial misconduct on summation are unpreserved for appellatereview because the defendant either failed to raise any objection, voiced a general objectionwithout specifying the ground therefor, or failed to seek further relief when an objection wassustained or when a curative instruction was provided by the court (see CPL 470.05 [2];People v Muniz, 44 AD3d1074, 1075 [2007]; People vBillups, 41 AD3d 492, 493 [2007]). In any event, the challenged portions of theprosecutor's summation constituted fair response to arguments presented in summation bydefense counsel, or fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawntherefrom (see People vApplewhite, 50 AD3d 1046 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 955 [2008]; People v Holland, 45 AD3d 863,864 [2007]). Mastro, J.P., Skelos, Covello and Leventhal, JJ., concur.