| People v Cross |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 02305 [116 AD3d 708] |
| April 2, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Stephen Cross, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Ruth E.Ross, and Brian E. Goldberg of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Chun, J.), rendered November 10, 2011, convicting him of rape in the third degree (twocounts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was charged with two counts of rape in the third degree in connectionwith an incident in his home involving the complainant, who was then 15 years old. Attrial, the Supreme Court admitted testimony regarding the complainant's "outcry" severaldays later, to various people. The defendant contends on appeal that some of the outcrytestimony was not admissible at all and that some of it went beyond the permissiblebounds of "outcry," in that it went to the details of the incident, rather than merely thenature of the complaint (seePeople v Rosario, 17 NY3d 501, 512 [2011]; People v McDaniel, 81NY2d 10, 17-18 [1993]). The defendant's claim is, in part, unpreserved for appellatereview (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Batista, 92 AD3d 793, 793 [2012]). In any event,to the extent that the outcry evidence was improper in scope or extent, the error inadmitting the testimony was harmless. The evidence of the defendant's guilt wasoverwhelming, and there is no significant probability that, absent the error, the defendantwould have been acquitted (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242 [1975];People v Leon, 98 AD3d1065, 1065 [2012]; Peoplev Sweeney, 92 AD3d 810, 811 [2012]).
Furthermore, the defense counsel's failure to object to some of the allegedly improperoutcry testimony did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel (see People v Hanson, 100AD3d 771, 772 [2012]). Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Miller and LaSalle, JJ., concur.