| People v Smith |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 03863 [95 AD3d 1145] |
| May 15, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v TorrelSmith, Appellant. |
—[*1] Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Hae Jin Liu and Richard LongworthHecht of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County(Zambelli, J.), rendered July 27, 2010, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a juryverdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
After a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of robbery in the first degree. The complainanthad identified the defendant in a lineup, and subsequently identified the defendant in court as theperson who, with another unidentified man, had robbed him at gunpoint. The complainanttestified that the defendant approached him and asked him for the time, and when thecomplainant took his cell phone out of his pocket, the defendant brandished a gun. Thedefendant's cohort came up from behind the complainant. The defendant demanded thecomplainant's cell phone and the complainant gave it to him. The defendant reached into thecomplainant's pockets and took from the complainant his money, his credit and debit cards, andhis ID and bartending license. The defendant and his cohort then fled.
The defendant contends that the Supreme Court's ruling allowing the People to elicittestimony from police witnesses regarding the description given to them by the complainant ofthe perpetrator with the gun served to improperly bolster the complainant's identificationtestimony. This contention is unpreserved for appellate review insofar as it relates to OfficerBurke's testimony, as the defendant registered only a general one-word objection to suchtestimony (see generally People vBrooks, 89 AD3d 746 [2011]; People v Mullings, 83 AD3d 871 [2011]). The defendant'sargument that he was deprived of a fair trial under the state and federal constitutions is alsounpreserved for appellate review since he did not raise this specific objection before the SupremeCourt (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]; see generally People v Wall, 92 AD3d812 [2012]; People v Lynch, 92AD3d 805 [2012]).
In any event, the defendant's contentions are without merit. The challenged testimony wasproperly admitted to assist the jury in evaluating the complainant's opportunity to observe the[*2]perpetrator at the time of the crime and the jury wasinstructed to consider the testimony for this purpose alone (see People v Ragunauth, 24 AD3d 472 [2005]; see also People v Linton, 62 AD3d722 [2009]; People v Roman, 5AD3d 311 [2004]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Florio, Eng andRoman, JJ., concur.