Opinion
April 4, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Cohen, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find that the trial court properly denied the defendant's application for the admission of 911 telephone call records into evidence since the defendant failed to demonstrate that the statements contained in the records had been made by one who was under a duty to impart them (see, CPLR 4518; Johnson v Lutz, 253 N.Y. 124; Matter of Leon RR, 48 N.Y.2d 117).
The defendant's contention that the prosecutor failed to lay a proper foundation for his cross-examination of witnesses Melborne Duncan and Lloyd Hilton, as required by People v. Dawson ( 50 N.Y.2d 311), has not been preserved for appellate review (see, People v. McGrath, 136 A.D.2d 658; People v. Kitt, 126 A.D.2d 669, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 1005). The defendant's limited objections as to the form of the questions posed were insufficient to preserve a claim that the safeguards announced in Dawson had not been observed (see, People v. Kitt, supra). We reject the defendant's contention that the trial court's earlier Dawson ruling, which pertained solely to the cross-examination of the defendant's mother, effectively precluded further objections to the cross-examination of Duncan and Hilton as to their failure to come forward to the authorities with their exculpatory information.
By failing to raise an objection at trial the defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that the rebuttal testimony of Kenneth Stern was improperly admitted into evidence (see, CPL 470.05). Moreover, we note that defense counsel rejected a suggestion by the trial court that the parties stipulate to the striking of the rebuttal testimony.
We find that the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 85-86).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Mollen, P.J., Kunzeman, Rubin and Balletta, JJ., concur.