Opinion
2015–11102 Ind. No. 2060/14
10-31-2018
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Luis PEREZ, Appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Joshua M. Levine, Brooklyn, of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Brooklyn, Solomon Neubort, Brooklyn, and Joyce Adolfsen of counsel), for respondent.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Joshua M. Levine, Brooklyn, of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Brooklyn, Solomon Neubort, Brooklyn, and Joyce Adolfsen of counsel), for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, ROBERT J. MILLER, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Danny K. Chun, J.), rendered October 15, 2015, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
As the People state, and as the defendant concedes, his objection to the admission of certain audiotape recordings on audibility grounds is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Bailey, 12 A.D.3d 377, 786 N.Y.S.2d 181 ). In any event, although background noise made some portions of the recordings inaudible, the remainder was sufficiently clear to permit the jury to understand the contents without resorting to speculation (see People v. Johnson, 151 A.D.3d 1462, 1463, 58 N.Y.S.3d 213 ; People v. McCaw, 137 A.D.3d 813, 815, 27 N.Y.S.3d 574 ; People v. Griffin, 98 A.D.3d 688, 689, 950 N.Y.S.2d 161 ).
The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in admitting a witness's testimony because that testimony constituted double hearsay (see generally People v. Brooks, 31 N.Y.3d 939, 942, 73 N.Y.S.3d 110, 96 N.E.3d 206 ). To the extent that the admission of the testimony was improper, contrary to the defendant's contention, it did not deprive the defendant of his constitutional right to a fair trial, and any other error in this regard was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, and no significant probability that the errors contributed to the defendant's conviction (see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241–242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787 ; see also People v. Brooks, 31 N.Y.3d at 942, 73 N.Y.S.3d 110, 96 N.E.3d 206 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
BALKIN, J.P., LEVENTHAL, MILLER and MALTESE, JJ., concur.