| People v Vargas |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 06743 [99 AD3d 481] |
| October 9, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v LuisVargas, Appellant. |
—[*1] Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Patrick J. Hynes of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (A. Kirke Bartley, Jr., J.), rendered February26, 2010, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted robbery in the second degree, andsentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of seven years, unanimously affirmed.
Defendant's right of confrontation was not violated by testimony by the People's expert DNAanalyst that made reference to data gathered by nontestifying technicians (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d 332[2009]). Williams v Illinois (567 US —, —, 132 S Ct 2221, 2242-2244[2012]) provides further support for the proposition that the DNA evidence in this case did notviolate the Confrontation Clause.
The court erred in ruling that class sign-in sheets from the program defendant was enrolled inon the date of the crime were admissible under the business records exception to the hearsay rule.The evidence did not establish that these records were kept "regularly, systematically[ and]routinely" (People v Kennedy, 68 NY2d 569, 579 [1986]), or that if kept in the regularcourse of business, they were "needed and relied on in the performance of the functions of thebusiness" (People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89 [1995]). There was no other basis foradmissibility. However, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence ofdefendant's guilt, including the DNA match (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230[1975]).
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli,Catterson, Renwick and DeGrasse, JJ.