| People v Fucito |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 05538 [108 AD3d 777] |
| July 31, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Joseph Fucito, 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(Kron, J.), rendered February 11, 2010, convicting him of attempted robbery in the firstdegree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, his right to confrontation (see USConst 6th Amend) was not violated by the admission into evidence of reports generatedby the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner of the City of New York. Each of thesereports consisted of a DNA profile developed from samples extracted from items foundat the crime scene. The reports contained no conclusions, interpretations, comparisons, orsubjective analyses, and "consisted of merely machine-generated graphs" and raw data(People v Brown, 13 NY3d332, 340 [2009]). Accordingly, the reports were not "testimonial" in nature(Crawford v Washington, 541 US 36, 36 [2004]; see People v Brown, 13 NY3d332 [2009]).
Further, a foundation for the admission of these reports as business records wasestablished through the testimony of an assistant director employed by the Office of theChief Medical Examiner of the City of New York (see CPLR 4518 [a];People v Brown, 13 NY3d at 341; People v Dail, 69 AD3d 873, 874 [2010]; People v Jenkins, 55 AD3d850, 851 [2008]), who also conducted the actual analysis and interpretation of thedata contained in the reports at issue. Therefore, the admission of the laboratory reportsand the testimony of the assistant director did not violate the defendant's right ofconfrontation (see People v Brown, 13 NY3d at 340; People v Thompson, 70 AD3d866, 866 [2010]; People v Dail, 69 AD3d at 875; People v Jenkins,55 AD3d at 851). Skelos, J.P., Dickerson, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.