Opinion
December 18, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find that the indictment indicating that the incidents took place "on or about and between July 1, 1984 and August 31, 1984" was sufficiently specific to allow the defendant to answer the charges and prepare an adequate defense (see, People v Keindl, 68 N.Y.2d 410). In the instant case, due to the ages of the victims and the nature of the acts, it is understandable that the dates could not be specified with exactitude (see, People v Jones, 133 A.D.2d 972).
The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in allowing the 10-year-old complainant to testify under oath. The record establishes that he understood "the nature of an oath" (CPL 60.20). Under the circumstances, the court's determination on this issue should not be disturbed (see, People v Nisoff, 36 N.Y.2d 560; People v Tyler, 154 A.D.2d 490; People v Hardie, 144 A.D.2d 484).
Since the defendant failed to demonstrate that the victim's mother would have provided material and noncumulative testimony, a missing witness charge was not warranted (see, People v Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424; People v Sykes, 151 A.D.2d 523).
Given the gravity of the instant crimes, the sentence imposed was not excessive.
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Harwood, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.