Opinion
October 1, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Fertig, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court erred by refusing to admit in evidence a tape of a telephone conversation between the complainant and an emergency number 911 telephone operator which contained statements inconsistent with the complainant's trial testimony (see, Hanlon v. Ehrich, 178 N.Y. 474, 479-480; People v. Chaitin, 94 A.D.2d 705, 706, affd 61 N.Y.2d 683). However, since the jury was made aware of the inconsistencies through cross-examination and a stipulation by the Assistant District Attorney as to the accuracy of the 911 tape, we find that the error was harmless in light of the strength of the inculpatory evidence and the lack of any significant probability that the admission of the tape would have resulted in acquittal (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; People v. Chaitin, supra; cf., People v. Harding, 44 A.D.2d 800, 801).
The defendant's further claim that the sentence imposed on the attempted burglary in the second degree conviction was excessive is without merit (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Mangano, P.J., Thompson, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.