| People v Hall |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01135 [59 AD3d 564] |
| February 10, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Malik Hall, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Shulamit RosenblumNemec, and Jonathan C. Shapiro of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lott, J.),rendered February 15, 2007, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree, upon a juryverdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
At trial, a police officer testified that he spoke with both the complaining witness and a boywho came to the aid of the complaining witness during the attack for which the defendant wasconvicted, and that the conversation took place outside a grocery store located near the scene ofthe incident. The officer then testified that, after speaking with the complaining witness and theboy, he entered the store and arrested the defendant.
The defendant contends that when the trial court allowed the police officer to testify that hearrested him after speaking with the boy, who did not testify at trial, the defendant'sconstitutional right to confront witnesses against him was violated (see Crawford vWashington, 541 US 36 [2004]). However, this contention is unpreserved for appellatereview (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, since there was overwhelming evidence ofthe defendant's guilt, including the defendant's confessions, and since there was no reasonablepossibility that any error in allowing the officer's testimony in this regard contributed to thedefendant's conviction, any error in allowing that testimony was harmless (see People v Hardy, 4 NY3d 192,198 [2005]; People v McBee, 8AD3d 500, 501 [2004]; People v Latta, 295 AD2d 449 [2002]).[*2]
The defendant also contends that the testimony of thepolice officer who arrested him after speaking with the complaining witness, who did testify attrial, constituted implicit bolstering of the complaining witness's identification testimony (seePeople v Trowbridge, 305 NY 471 [1953]). However, this contention is also unpreserved forappellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Taylor, 29 AD3d 713 [2006]). In any event, any error inallowing the officer's testimony in this regard was harmless (see People v Gordillo, 191AD2d 455, 456 [1993]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (seeCPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Dillon, Covello andLeventhal, JJ., concur.