People v. Hakmoun

• Decision Date: 15 October 1996
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Said HAKMOUN, a/k/a Seid Benkenrin, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 1

649 N.Y.S.2d 1

232 A.D.2d 243

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Said HAKMOUN, a/k/a Seid Benkenrin, Defendant-Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

First Department.

Oct. 15, 1996.

Grace Vee, for Respondent.

Samuel Feldman, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before MILONAS, J.P., and WALLACH, NARDELLI, TOM and MAZZARELLI, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J., at hearing; Nicholas Figueroa, J., at trial and sentencing), rendered November 18, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to five years probation, unanimously affirmed.

There is no merit to defendant's claim that the victim referred to a suppressed identification when, during a re-cross-examination designed to elicit that he failed to fully describe defendant to the arresting officer, he commented that police at some point had "brought (the defendants) around" (see, People v. Carolina, 211 A.D.2d 454, 621 N.Y.S.2d 49, lv. denied 85 N.Y.2d 860, 624 N.Y.S.2d 379, 648 N.E.2d 799). Since the response was struck as not responsive, defendant thereafter refused a curative instruction, and the court directed the jury not to consider matters struck from the record, to whatever extent defendant required curative relief, it was provided, and the court properly denied the motion for a mistrial.

Since defendant clearly and repeatedly waived the presence of the interpreter during the completion of readback, his present claim that he was constructively absent during a material stage of the proceedings is unpreserved (People v. Robles, 86 N.Y.2d 763, 631 N.Y.S.2d 131, 655 N.E.2d 172). We have considered defendant's other contentions and find them to be without merit.