Opinion
2012-09423, Ind. No. 1768/11.
05-11-2016
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Anthony BEHARRY, appellant.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Jonathan Garelick of counsel), for appellant. Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Diane R. Eisner, and Kristen A. Carroll of counsel), for respondent.
Seymour W. James, Jr., New York, N.Y. (Jonathan Garelick of counsel), for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Diane R. Eisner, and Kristen A. Carroll of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Guzman, J.), rendered September 21, 2012, convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that certain testimony regarding his intoxication was improperly elicited is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Jackson, 100 A.D.3d 1018, 954 N.Y.S.2d 472 ). In any event, the Supreme Court did not err in allowing a police officer to testify as to his opinion regarding whether the defendant was intoxicated (see People v. Bennett, 238 A.D.2d 898, 899, 660 N.Y.S.2d 772 ; People v. Bost, 133 A.D.2d 930, 520 N.Y.S.2d 645 ). The court also did not err in permitting a paramedic to offer an expert opinion with respect to the defendant's intoxication, since his testimony related to matters beyond the ken of the typical juror (see People v. Davis, 118 A.D.3d 906, 907, 988 N.Y.S.2d 217 ; People v. Fernandez, 78 A.D.3d 726, 910 N.Y.S.2d 140 ).
The defendant's contention with respect to the prosecutor's summation is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ) and, in any event, without merit.
RIVERA, J.P., BALKIN, BARROS and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.