Opinion
March 3, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Matthews, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
The evidence adduced at the trial was sufficient to permit a rational trier of fact to find that the defendant was guilty as charged of robbery in the second degree and grand larceny in the second degree (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621). The defendant admitted to being the driver of the getaway car and there was sufficient evidence, including the testimony of the defendant, for the jury to conclude that he had been a willing participant in the crime.
The defendant failed to object at trial to the prosecutrix's comments during her summation which he now claims constituted improper vouching for the prosecutrix's witnesses. Accordingly, he had not preserved his claim for appellate review (see, People v. Thomas, 50 N.Y.2d 467). Moreover, the prosecutrix's statements were in direct response to the defense counsel's own objectionable remarks made during his summation, in which he characterized the prosecutrix's witnesses as liars (see, People v. Marks, 6 N.Y.2d 67, cert denied 362 U.S. 912; People v Gilmore, 106 A.D.2d 399).
Lastly, the court was correct in refusing to permit the defendant's mother to testify to hearsay statements made to her by the defendant. While there is no time limit during which a statement must be made in order to be considered a spontaneous declaration, the declarant must not have had time to reflect and deviate from the truth (see, People v. Edwards, 47 N.Y.2d 493). Here, the trial court properly found that the defendant had had an opportunity for reflection. Therefore, this testimony was properly excluded. Gibbons, J.P., Thompson, Brown and Weinstein, JJ., concur.