Opinion
June 17, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court did not err by refusing to permit him to elicit from the People's police witness the purportedly exculpatory statements he made to the officer at the time of his apprehension and arrest. A defendant may not avoid taking the witness stand and avoid being cross-examined by presenting his story through the hearsay testimony of another witness (see, People v. Williams, 203 A.D.2d 498; People v. Dvoroznak, 127 A.D.2d 785). Furthermore, the defendant failed to demonstrate that the self-serving hearsay statements were admissible under any exceptions to the hearsay rule (see, People v. Morgan, 76 N.Y.2d 493; People v. Shortridge, 65 N.Y.2d 309; People v. Morrow, 204 A.D.2d 356; People v. Cuevas, 138 A.D.2d 620; People v. Rodriguez, 121 A.D.2d 660).
The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that it was error for the court to have received into evidence a tape recording of the complainant's telephone call to the 911 emergency number because the complainant testified at trial (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, the availability of the declarant at trial did not render the tape inadmissible under the present sense impression to the hearsay rule, and playing the tape for the jury did not serve to bolster the declarant's testimony (see, People v. Buie, 86 N.Y.2d 501; People v. Brown, 80 N.Y.2d 729).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80), and the defendant's remaining contention lacks merit. Miller, J.P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.