Opinion
December 17, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant argues that the trial court erred by allowing the complainant, who was five years old at the time of the crime, and eight years old at the time of the trial, to give sworn testimony. We disagree. The trial court's determination of whether a child is competent to give sworn testimony is entitled to significant deference on appeal (see, People v. Nisoff, 36 N.Y.2d 560, 566; People v. Rosado, 157 A.D.2d 754, 755). In the present case, the complainant demonstrated that he was able to distinguish between telling the truth, which was a "good thing", and telling a lie, which was a "bad thing". Moreover, he understood that a promise to tell the truth meant that he would not lie, and that if he did lie, he would be punished. Thus, the complainant displayed an awareness of "the nature of an oath" (CPL 60.20), and the trial court properly exercised its discretion in allowing him to give sworn testimony (see, People v. Tyler, 154 A.D.2d 490). Thompson, J.P., Brown, Kunzeman and Miller, JJ., concur.