Opinion
July 7, 1988
Appeal from the Monroe County Court, Egan, J.
Present — Denman, J.P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The statements made by the codefendant were admissible against defendant because the proof established that they were partners in the crime of promoting prostitution and that the statements were made by the codefendant during the commission of the crime and in furtherance thereof (see, People v. Salko, 47 N.Y.2d 230, 237, rearg denied and mot to amend remittitur granted 47 N.Y.2d 1010; People v Luciano, 277 N.Y. 348, 358, rearg denied 278 N.Y. 624, cert denied 305 U.S. 620). It was not necessary that the indictment charge the crime of conspiracy (People v. Luciano, supra). Under the circumstances of this case, these statements did not violate the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (see, Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74, 86-90; People v Salko, supra, at 241; People v. H., 113 Misc.2d 611, 616). The Bruton rule has no application here, because in Bruton (Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123) there was not before the court "`any recognized exception to the hearsay rule'" (Dutton v Evans, supra, at 86).
We have examined the other issues raised by defendant and we find them to be without merit.