Opinion
May 11, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in allowing the seven-year-old complainant to testify as a sworn witness, since he had "`some conception' of the obligations of an oath and the consequences of giving false testimony" ( People v. Parks, 41 N.Y.2d 36, 46, quoting People v. Washor, 196 N.Y. 104, 109). Moreover, the child indicated that he knew the difference between the truth and a tie and knew that he would be punished if he did not tell the truth ( see, People v. Schultz, 168 A.D.2d 468). We also note that the child's testimony was corroborated by other physical and testimonial evidence indicating that the defendant had sodomized the child ( see, CPL 60.20).
The defendant's challenge to the prosecutor's opening statement and summation is unpreserved for appellate. review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245) and, in any event, did not exceed the bounds of permissible rhetoric afforded counsel during argument ( see, People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105; People v. Wilson, 173 A.D.2d 751).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not warrant reversal.
Bracken, J.P., O'Brien, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.