| People v Reynolds |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 03635 [83 AD3d 1098] |
| April 26, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Phillip Reynolds, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J.Caferri, and William H. Branigan of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Roman,J.), rendered February 19, 2009, convicting him of attempted robbery in the second degree andresisting arrest, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the Supreme Courterroneously permitted a statement made by the victim to a witness to be admitted under the"excited utterance" exception to the hearsay rule (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19[1995]; People v Paige, 283 AD2d 445 [2001]). In any event, the statement was properlyreceived in evidence as an excited utterance, as there was ample evidence to "justify theconclusion that the remarks were not made under the impetus of studied reflection" (People vMelendez, 296 AD2d 424, 425 [2002]; see People v Cotto, 92 NY2d 68, 78-79[1998]; People v Brown, 70 NY2d 513, 518 [1987]; People v Gabbidon, 272AD2d 411 [2000]).
There is no merit to the defendant's argument that the Supreme Court erred in precluding hisattorney from questioning a police officer about an alleged prior inconsistent statement made tothe officer by a witness. Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court providentlyexercised its discretion in limiting the cross-examination of the police officer (see People vStevens, 45 AD3d 610 [2007]; People v Paixao, 23 AD3d 677 [2005]). Rivera, J.P.,Dickerson, Hall and Cohen, JJ., concur.