Opinion
January 19, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The mother of the complaining witness testified that after the occurrence of the sexual attack which is the basis of the present indictment, her daughter came to her and said that she had been raped. The victim's mother also testified that her daughter claimed to have recognized her assailant. While the evidence of the victim's complaint to her mother about the sexual assault was properly admitted into evidence (see generally, People v. Rice, 75 N.Y.2d 929; People v. McDaniel, 178 A.D.2d 612; People v Thomas, 176 A.D.2d 470; People v. Gonzalez, 131 A.D.2d 873), we agree with the defendant that it was error to permit the victim's mother to testify as to her daughter's claim to have known her attacker. This testimony went "beyond the limited purpose of the [recent outcry] exception [to the hearsay rule] which is simply to show that a complaint was made" (People v. Rice, supra, at 932; People v. McDaniel, supra). However, there is no significant probability that this error contributed to the jury's decision to convict the defendant, and reversal on this ground is therefore unwarranted (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; see also, People v. Rice, supra, at 932; People v. Lopez, 175 A.D.2d 267, 269; People v. Allen, 172 A.D.2d 542).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Sullivan and O'Brien, JJ., concur.