Majority
—Appeal by the
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 [2]; People v Hughes, 251 AD2d 513 [1998]). 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 AD2d 275 , 276 [2001]). 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 NY2d 750 , 759 [1988]; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]; People v Ayala, 142 AD2d 147 , 171 [1988] affd 75 NY2d 422 [1990]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
The defendant’s remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Ritter, J.P., Smith, Krausman and Rivera, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Rolland 284 AD2d 275 at 276 p. 433
- People v. Hamlin 71 NY2d 750 at 759 p. 433
- People v. Crimmins 36 NY2d 230 p. 433
- People v. Ayala 142 AD2d 147 at 171 p. 433
- People v. Ayala 75 NY2d 422 p. 433
- People v. Suitte 90 AD2d 80 p. 433