Opinion
February 14, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barasch, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant claims reversible error in evidentiary rulings of the trial court. We disagree. Although the trial court erred in excluding, as hearsay, testimony offered to circumstantially prove the defendant's state of mind (see, Matter of Bergstein v Board of Educ., 34 N.Y.2d 318; People v. Martinez, 154 A.D.2d 401), we find that this error was harmless in light of the overwhelming proof of the defendant's guilt (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 242; People v. Valentin, 130 A.D.2d 529). Moreover, the testimony would have been cumulative since the jury heard other evidence with respect to the defendant's state of mind (see, People v. Martinez, supra). The trial court properly excluded the defendant's testimony concerning the complainant's acts subsequent to the instant crime (see, People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P.J., Rosenblatt, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.