Opinion
December 11, 1995
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Baker, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
To the extent that it is preserved for appellate review, there is no merit to the defendant's contention that the indictment does not indicate the time frame of the alleged criminal acts with sufficient specificity (see, People v Morris, 61 N.Y.2d 290; People v Barrett, 166 A.D.2d 657; People v Jones, 133 A.D.2d 972).
The defendant contends that the People failed to prove that her inculpatory statements to law enforcement officials were competent, reliable, and voluntary. To the extent that this contention relates to the Huntley hearing, it is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Smith, 55 N.Y.2d 888; People v Clink, 143 A.D.2d 838). In any event, we are satisfied that the People proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant's statements were properly admitted into evidence. To the extent that the defendant contends that the jury incorrectly weighed the evidence adduced at trial regarding her statements, her contention is without merit (see, People v Whiten, 183 A.D.2d 865).
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence was not raised at trial and is, therefore, unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it is legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt is not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
Under the circumstances of this case, a note written by the complainant to her mother was sufficiently prompt to be admitted into evidence pursuant to the prompt outcry exception to the hearsay rule (see, People v Kornowski, 178 A.D.2d 984; People v Vanterpool, 214 A.D.2d 429). The defendant's contention that the entire note was erroneously admitted into evidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05) and, in any event, without merit.
The defendant's sentence is not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05) or without merit. Mangano, P.J., Balletta, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.