People v. Alexander

• Decision Date: 06 March 2019
• Docket Number: 2015–00834,Ind. No. 10999/12
• Citation: 170 A.D.3d 738,93 N.Y.S.3d 608 (Mem)
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. William ALEXANDER, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

170 A.D.3d 738

93 N.Y.S.3d 608 (Mem)

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent,

v.William ALEXANDER, Appellant.

2015–00834

Ind. No. 10999/12

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Argued - December 7, 2018

March 6, 2019

Janet E. Sabel, New York, N.Y. (Anita Aboagye–Agyeman and Will Page of counsel), for appellant.

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Jean M. Joyce, and Sullivan & Cromwell LLP [Michele C. Materni ], of counsel), for respondent.

WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., JEFFREY A. COHEN, JOSEPH J. MALTESE, HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in excluding a photograph from evidence, as the defendant failed to lay a sufficient foundation for its admission (see People v. Price , 29 N.Y.3d 472, 479–480, 58 N.Y.S.3d 259, 80 N.E.3d 1005 ; cf. People v. Wells , 161 A.D.3d 1200, 77 N.Y.S.3d 668 ; People v. Marra , 96 A.D.3d 1623, 1626, 946 N.Y.S.2d 783, affd 21 N.Y.3d 979, 971 N.Y.S.2d 491, 994 N.E.2d 387 ). In any event, even if erroneous, the failure to admit the photograph was harmless, as the proof of the defendant's guilt was overwhelming and there is no significant probability that the jury would have acquitted the defendant had the photograph been admitted (see People v. Crimmins , 36 N.Y.2d 230, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787 ).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte , 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).

MASTRO, J.P., COHEN, MALTESE and LASALLE, JJ., concur.