Opinion
December 10, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Martin Marcus, J.).
Defendant's contention that the victim's statements identifying defendant as his assailant were improperly admitted as excited utterances, a ground different from the one urged at trial, is unpreserved (cf., People v Qualls, 55 N.Y.2d 733, 734), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find the contention to be without merit. Both statements were uttered while the victim was under the stress of excitement caused by his having been repeatedly stabbed by defendant that stilled his reflective capacity, and thus qualify as excited utterances (People v Brown, 70 N.Y.2d 513, 519).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Rosenberger and Ellerin, JJ.