| People v Garrett |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 04081 [62 AD3d 899] |
| May 19, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Alicia Garrett, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Diane R. Eisner,Marie John-Drigo, and Seth M. Lieberman of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chambers,J.), rendered March 3, 2005, convicting her of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a juryverdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the admission into evidence of certain statements made bythe decedent to a police officer violated her constitutional right to confrontation is unpreservedfor appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the defendant's right toconfrontation was not violated by the admission of the statements into evidence because theywere not testimonial in nature (seePeople v Nieves-Andino, 9 NY3d 12, 14-16 [2007]).
The defendant's contention that a police officer's testimony implicitly bolstered anotherwitness's testimony regarding a prior lineup identification of the defendant also is unpreservedfor appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Sealy, 35 AD3d 510, 510-511 [2006]). In any event, anyimplicit bolstering that occurred was harmless, since the evidence of the defendant's guilt,without reference to the error, was overwhelming and there was no significant probability that,but for the error, the jury would have acquitted the defendant (see People v Johnson, 57NY2d 969, 970 [1982]; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, [*2]241-242 [1975]).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in her supplemental pro sebrief, are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, arewithout merit. Fisher, J.P., Covello, Angiolillo and Leventhal, JJ., concur.