| People v Singleton |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01034 [59 AD3d 1131] |
| February 11, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v David J.Singleton, Appellant. |
—[*1] David J. Singleton, defendant-appellant pro se. Michael C. Green, District Attorney, Rochester (Patrick H. Fierro of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Walter W. Hafner, Jr., J.), renderedAugust 5, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of robbery in the firstdegree and burglary in the first degree.
It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him, following a jury trial, of onecount each of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [4]) and burglary in the firstdegree (§ 140.30 [4]), defendant contends that County Court erred in refusing to strike thetestimony of one of the victims adduced through two interpreters. The victims are natives ofIndia, and the victim in question understood some English. We note at the outset that defendant'scontention is preserved for our review only with respect to the testimony adduced through thesecond of the two interpreters (see CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise ourpower to review defendant's contention with respect to the first interpreter as a matter ofdiscretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).
We conclude that the court did not err in refusing to strike the testimony of the victim inquestion based upon the alleged inaccuracies in the second interpreter's translation. Althoughdefendant established that there were some errors in that translation, he failed to establish that he"was prejudiced by those errors" (People v Dat Pham, 283 AD2d 952 [2001], lvdenied 96 NY2d 900 [2001]; see People v Restivo, 226 AD2d 1106, 1107 [1996],lv denied 88 NY2d 883 [1996]). In any event, the record establishes that any errors werecorrected either through objections made by defense counsel that were sustained by the court, orthrough defense counsel's cross-examination of the victim using the third and fourth interpreters(see Restivo, 226 AD2d at 1107).
We have reviewed the remaining contentions of defendant, including those raised in his prose supplemental brief, and conclude that they are without merit. Present—Martoche, J.P.,Fahey, Green, Pine and Gorski, JJ.