Opinion
May 29, 1990
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Delin, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On December 13, 1984, the defendant and two accomplices exited an automobile and robbed the complainant of his jacket. The defendant and his accomplices were subsequently arrested after the complainant supplied the police with the license plate number of the car the defendant had been operating during the robbery. The defendant and his two codefendants signed detailed confessions recounting their complicity in the robbery, which statements were admitted into evidence at their joint trial. On appeal, the defendant argues that the admission of his nontestifying codefendants' confessions constituted a violation of his constitutional right to confrontation, requiring reversal of his conviction (see, Cruz v. New York, 481 U.S. 186; Bruton v United States, 391 U.S. 123). We conclude otherwise and affirm.
We note that the defendant neither challenged the introduction of his codefendants' statements on Bruton grounds, nor moved for a severance, thereby failing to preserve his present assertion for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Jefferson, 156 A.D.2d 716; People v. Restrepo-Velez, 156 A.D.2d 488; People v. Vargas, 143 A.D.2d 699; see also, People v Russell, 71 N.Y.2d 1016; People v. Green, 138 A.D.2d 516). In any event, while we recognize that the admission of the codefendants' statements was improper (see, Cruz v. New York, 481 U.S. 186, supra; Bruton v. United States, supra; People v. [Leonard] Thomas, 160 A.D.2d 968), under the circumstances, the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, e.g., People v. Hamlin, 71 N.Y.2d 750; People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; People v. Pena, 159 A.D.2d 651). The defendant's own statement fully detailed his participation in the crime and closely mirrored, in material part, the events as described by the complainant (see, People v Lozado, 157 A.D.2d 630; People v. Restrepo-Velez, supra). Moreover, the complainant was able to provide the police with the license plate number of the car the defendant was operating during the robbery, which was owned by the defendant's father, with whom the defendant resided at the time the crime was committed. Under the circumstances presented, the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt rendered the admission of the codefendants' statements harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. West, 72 N.Y.2d 941; People v. Hamlin, supra; People v. Pitts, 71 N.Y.2d 923; People v. Pena, supra). Lawrence, J.P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.