Opinion
June 8, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Any error in the admission of the out-of-court statement by the defendant's girlfriend to the effect that she admired the victim's earrings and that she was going to get a pair, which was introduced to show a possible motive of the defendant in robbing the victim, was harmless in light of the overwhelming independent evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241-242).
We disagree with the defendant's contention that the trial court failed to exercise its discretion as required under People v. Sandoval ( 34 N.Y.2d 371), or that the court's ruling warrants reversal (cf., People v. Williams, 56 N.Y.2d 236; see, People v Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282; People v. Scott, 161 A.D.2d 738; People v Kuethman, 156 A.D.2d 472; People v. Fana, 142 A.D.2d 684).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Santucci, JJ., concur.