| People v Chandler |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01130 [59 AD3d 562] |
| February 10, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Christopher Chandler, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Rhea A. Grob, andPaul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison [Rodney H. Atreopersaud] of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Parker, J., attrial, and Henry, J., at sentencing), rendered April 23, 2007, convicting him of robbery in thethird degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in admitting into evidence thetestimony of a police detective that the detective identified him as a suspect after engaging in aconversation with two individuals who were not called as witnesses, and undertaking furtherdetective work. However, the contention is without merit since the testimony was not offered forits truth, but rather to explain police actions and the sequence of events leading to the defendant'sarrest (see People v Tosca, 98 NY2d 660 [2002]; People v Reynolds, 46 AD3d 845 [2007]; People v Monroe,216 AD2d 494 [1995]). Furthermore, contrary to the defendant's contention, the challengedtestimony did not implicate the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime (see People v Nicholas, 1 AD3d614 [2003]).
The defendant's contention that the detective's testimony violated his rights under theConfrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution is unpreservedfor appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Crawford, 54 AD3d 961, 962 [2008]; People vJohnson, 40 [*2]AD3d 1011, 1012 [2007]) and, in any event,is without merit (see Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36, 59 n 9 [2004]; People v Reynoso, 2 NY3d 820,821 [2004]; People v Davis, 23AD3d 833, 834-835 [2005]; cf.People v Berry, 49 AD3d 888 [2008]). Mastro, J.P., Florio, Covello and Belen, JJ.,concur.