Opinion
2015–00834 Ind. No. 10999/12
03-06-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. William ALEXANDER, Appellant.
Janet E. Sabel, New York, N.Y. (Anita Aboagye–Agyeman and Will Page of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Jean M. Joyce, and Sullivan & Cromwell LLP [Michele C. Materni ], of counsel), for respondent.
Janet E. Sabel, New York, N.Y. (Anita Aboagye–Agyeman and Will Page of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Jean M. Joyce, and Sullivan & Cromwell LLP [Michele C. Materni ], of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in excluding a photograph from evidence, as the defendant failed to lay a sufficient foundation for its admission (see People v. Price , 29 N.Y.3d 472, 479–480, 58 N.Y.S.3d 259, 80 N.E.3d 1005 ; cf. People v. Wells , 161 A.D.3d 1200, 77 N.Y.S.3d 668 ; People v. Marra , 96 A.D.3d 1623, 1626, 946 N.Y.S.2d 783, affd 21 N.Y.3d 979, 971 N.Y.S.2d 491, 994 N.E.2d 387 ). In any event, even if erroneous, the failure to admit the photograph was harmless, as the proof of the defendant's guilt was overwhelming and there is no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had the photograph been admitted (see People v. Crimmins , 36 N.Y.2d 230, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787 ).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte , 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
MASTRO, J.P., COHEN, MALTESE and LASALLE, JJ., concur.