| People v Carney |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 06891 [110 AD3d 1244] |
| October 24, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v KirkF. Carney, Appellant. |
—[*1] D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel),for respondent.
Peters, P.J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Tailleur,J.), rendered July 22, 2011, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of criminalcontempt in the second degree, menacing in the second degree, criminal possession of aweapon in the fourth degree and driving while ability impaired.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of criminal contempt in the seconddegree, menacing in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourthdegree and driving while ability impaired. The charges stemmed from an incidentwherein defendant, among other things, pointed a rifle at the vehicle stopped next to himat a traffic light. Defendant was sentenced to 180 days in jail on his conviction of drivingwhile ability impaired, to run consecutively with concurrent one year jail terms on theremaining misdemeanor charges. He appeals, and we affirm.
At trial, the deputy sheriff who arrested defendant testified as to the description andlicense plate of defendant's vehicle provided to him by the victims. Defendant'scontention that this testimony constituted hearsay and should not have been admitted iswithout merit. Such testimony was not being offered for the truth of its content but,rather, to explain the basis of the subsequent actions taken by the officer (see People v Abare, 86 AD3d803, 805 [2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 861 [2012]; People v Barnett,278 AD2d 660, 661 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 825 [2001]; People vRoraback, 242 AD2d 400, 403 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 879 [*2][1997]).
Defendant's assertion that the prosecutor improperly vouched for the People'switnesses and asserted her own personal beliefs during summation, and that theprejudicial effect of these remarks requires reversal, is similarly unavailing. The majorityof the alleged inappropriate statements were not objected to and, thus, are unpreservedfor our review (see People vPerry, 95 AD3d 1444, 1446 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 1000 [2012]; People v Terry, 85 AD3d1485, 1487 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 862 [2011). The remaining twochallenged remarks, while improper, were met with sustained objections, thereby limitingany resulting prejudice, and no curative instructions were requested (see People v Guay, 18 NY3d16, 24 [2011]; People vHughes, 93 AD3d 889, 891 [2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 961 [2012]; People v Joseph, 68 AD3d1534, 1536 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 889 [2010], cert denied 562US —, 131 S Ct 797 [2010]; People v Weber, 40 AD3d 1267, 1268 [2007], lvdenied 9 NY3d 927 [2007]). Further, the jury was subsequently directed to disregardany comment made during summation to which an objection was sustained and wastwice instructed that counsel's remarks during summation did not constitute evidence (see People v Rowe, 105 AD3d1088, 1091 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1019 [2013]; People vHughes, 93 AD3d at 891; People v Newkirk, 75 AD3d 853, 857 [2010], lvdenied 16 NY3d 834 [2011]). In light of these circumstances and considering theoverwhelming evidence of guilt, defendant's right to a fair trial was not compromised.
Stein, McCarthy and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.