Opinion
December 29, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
In December 1992, the defendant and several codefendants, including Jose O'Connor (see, People v O'Connor, 222 A.D.2d 705 [decided herewith]), kidnapped a victim and held him hostage in a building in Queens for several days. The kidnappers attempted to extort ransom money from the victim's family in exchange for his release. Police detectives monitored and recorded telephone conversations between the defendant, among others, and the victim's family members.
The audio tapes of the telephone conversations, which were entirely in Spanish, were admitted into evidence at trial. An English translation of the tapes, which was prepared by an official court interpreter who was subjected to cross examination by the defendant, was provided to the jury but was not admitted into evidence. Although the defendant now argues that the Supreme Court erred in allowing the jury to consider the translation without admitting it into evidence (see, CPL 310.20), the argument is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v George, 67 N.Y.2d 817, 819). In any event, although the proper course would have been to admit the translation into evidence (see, e.g., People v Lanfronco, 176 A.D.2d 201; People v Santos, 168 A.D.2d 392), we find the error harmless in light of the Supreme Court's efforts to certify its accuracy (see, e.g., People v Blanco, 162 A.D.2d 540, 543-544; see also, People v Tapia, 114 A.D.2d 983). Indeed, the defendant conceded the accuracy of the content of the translation at trial.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in dismissing a sworn juror during the trial is also without merit (see, People v O'Connor, supra), as is the claim that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in precluding the defendant from offering alibi testimony. As to the latter argument, the defendant did not show good cause for his failure to serve timely notice of alibi as required by CPL 250.20 (see, People v Smith, 208 A.D.2d 965; People v Toro, 198 A.D.2d 532, 533; People v Caputo, 175 A.D.2d 290).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 86). Copertino, J.P., Pizzuto, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.