| People v Lino |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 06708 [65 AD3d 1263] |
| September 22, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Benjamin Lino, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J.Caferri, and Jennifer Hagan of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Blumenfeld, J.), rendered October 1, 2007, convicting him of criminal contempt in the firstdegree (three counts) and criminal contempt in the second degree (three counts), upon a juryverdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the admission into evidence of a certified copy of an order ofprotection violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to theUnited States Constitution is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). Inany event, the contention is without merit because the order of protection and the statementscontained therein were not testimonial in nature (see Crawford v Washington, 541 US36, 56 [2004]; People v Rawlins, 10NY3d 136 [2008]; People vMaldonado, 44 AD3d 793, 794 [2007]; People v Liner, 33 AD3d 479 [2006], affd 9 NY3d 856[2007]; cf. People v Pacer, 6 NY3d504 [2006]). The order of protection, which indicated that the defendant was present in courtwhen it was issued and that the defendant was advised of it, constituted a contemporaneousrecord of objective facts and was not directly accusatory (see People v Freycinet, 11 NY3d 38, 41 [2008]; People vRawlins, 10 NY3d at 156; cf.People v Pacer, 6 NY3d 504 [2006]).
The defendant's challenge to certain remarks made by the prosecutor in summation isunpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant either raised no objection to the remarks orvoiced only a general objection without specifying the ground therefor (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Prowse, 60 AD3d703 [2009]; People vCrawford, 54 AD3d 961, 962 [2008]). In any event, the challenged remarks did notdeprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981];People v Prowse, 60 AD3d 703[2009]; People v Delaney, 26 AD3d189, 190 [2006]).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Mastro, J.P., Santucci, Eng and Lott,JJ., concur.