Majority
Appeal by the de
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant’s contention that certain testimony constituted inadmissible hearsay is not preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Velez, 64 AD3d 621 , 622 [2009]; People v Ketteles, 62 AD3d 902 , 905 [2009]; People v Bryan, 50 AD3d 1049 , 1050 [2008]; People v Antongiorgi, 242 AD2d 578 [1997]; People v Merchant, 150 AD2d 730 , 731 [1989]). In any event, the defendant’s contention is without merit (see People v Walker, 70 AD3d 870 , 871 [2010]; People v Chandler, 59 AD3d 562 , 562 [2009]; People v Arrington, 158 AD2d 461 [1990]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, do not require reversal. Skelos, J.P., Angiolillo, Leventhal and Roman, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Velez 64 AD3d 621 at 622 p. 820
- People v. Merchant 150 AD2d 730 at 731 p. 820
- People v. Walker 70 AD3d 870 at 871 p. 820
- People v. Chandler 59 AD3d 562 at 562 p. 820
- People v. Suitte 90 AD2d 80 p. 820