| People v World |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 08388 [89 AD3d 966] |
| November 15, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Christopher World, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Ruth E. Ross, and MarieJohn-Drigo of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sullivan, J.),rendered January 20, 2010, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree and grand larceny in thefourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court properly permitted the complainant's friend to testify, under the "prompt outcry"exception to the hearsay rule, that the complainant told the friend that she had been raped (see People v Shelton, 1 NY3d 614,615 [2004] [internal quotation marks omitted]; People v McDaniel, 81 NY2d 10, 16 [1993];People v Verrilli, 69 AD3d 963[2010]).
The trial court properly admitted evidence of uncharged crimes committed by the defendant sincethis evidence was inextricably interwoven with the narrative of events, and since it was necessarybackground information to explain to the jury the relationship between the defendant and thecomplainant (see People v Vails, 43 NY2d 364 [1977]; People v Dahlbender, 23 AD3d 493 [2005]; People v Samlal,292 AD2d 400 [2002]). To the extent that the testimony in question exceeded the scope of the trialcourt's ruling, the trial court's prompt curative instructions were sufficient to mitigate any possibleprejudice (see People v Alexander, 50AD3d 816, 817 [2008]).
The defendant's challenges to the alleged instances of prosecutorial misconduct in the openingstatement and in summation are unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Masaguilar, 86 AD3d 619, 620 [2011]; People v Muniz, 44 AD3d 1074[2007]; People v Jenkins, 38 AD3d566, 567 [2007]). In any event, most of the remarks now challenged on appeal were proper.Although some of the prosecutor's comments in summation were improper, they constituted harmlesserror (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]; People v Ortiz, 46 AD3d 580, 581[2007]). Florio, J.P., Hall, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.