Opinion
2001-04772
Submitted March 17, 2003.
May 5, 2003.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.), rendered May 1, 2001, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Reyna W. Marder of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Sholom J. Twersky of counsel), for respondent.
Before: DAVID S. RITTER, J.P., NANCY E. SMITH, GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that his Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him was violated when the People were permitted to introduce the rebuttal testimony of a police detective, who stated that the defendant confessed after he was told his accomplice had "given him up and named him in the robbery." This contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05; People v. Hughes, 251 A.D.2d 513). In any event, the defendant opened the door to statements made to him by the detectives prior to his confession (see People v. Rolland, 284 A.D.2d 275, 276). Moreover, the evidence of the defendant's guilt was overwhelming. Thus, any error in admitting such testimony was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Hamlin, 71 N.Y.2d 750, 759; People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; People v. Ayala, 142 A.D.2d 147, 171 affd 75 N.Y.2d 422).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
RITTER, J.P., SMITH, KRAUSMAN and RIVERA, JJ., concur.