Majority
Appeal by the de
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in permitting the People to present the testimony of a witness who was not on their witness list (see People v Plume, 306 AD2d 916 , 917 [2003]; People v Shabazz, 246 AD2d 831 , 832 [1998]; People v Williams, 243 AD2d 833 , 837 [1997]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, there was no evidence of deceit or trickery on the part of the People, or any substantial prejudice to him (see People v Tayo, 133 AD3d 499 , 500 [2015]; People v Pedraza, 25 AD3d 394 , 394-395 [2006]; cf. People v Bennett, 40 AD3d 653 , 655 [2007]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
Rivera, J.P., Roman, Duffy and Brathwaite Nelson, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Shabazz 246 AD2d 831 at 832 p. 1085
- People v. Williams 243 AD2d 833 at 837 p. 1085
- People v. Tayo 133 AD3d 499 at 500 p. 1085
- People v. Pedraza 25 AD3d 394 at 394-395 p. 1085
- People v. Bennett 40 AD3d 653 at 655 p. 1085
- People v. Suitte 90 AD2d 80 p. 1085