PEOPLE v. CRAWFORD (2008)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), rendered June 1, 2006, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 The defendant's contention that a detective's testimony consisted of inadmissible hearsay when he referred to a statement by the “victim's family” regarding information “from the streets” is without merit, because the testimony was not offered for its truth (see People v. Tosca, 98 N.Y.2d 660, 661, 746 N.Y.S.2d 276, 773 N.E.2d 1014;  People v. Smith, 27 A.D.3d 242, 243, 810 N.Y.S.2d 193).   The defendant's remaining contentions regarding alleged hearsay errors are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2] ) and, in any event, are without merit (see People v. South, 47 A.D.3d 734, 735, 849 N.Y.S.2d 603;  People v. Bryant, 39 A.D.3d 768, 834 N.Y.S.2d 305;  People v. Algarin, 15 A.D.3d 411, 412, 790 N.Y.S.2d 476).

The defendant's contention that the same testimony violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Rush, 44 A.D.3d 799, 800, 843 N.Y.S.2d 392) and, in any event, is without merit (see People v. South, 47 A.D.3d at 735, 849 N.Y.S.2d 603;  People v. Johnson, 40 A.D.3d 1011, 1012, 837 N.Y.S.2d 222;  People v. Bryant, 39 A.D.3d 768, 834 N.Y.S.2d 305).

 The defendant's challenge to the prosecutor's questioning of the defense witness during cross-examination regarding a nontestifying witness' statement to an investigator does not warrant reversal because the trial court's actions were sufficient to avert any substantial prejudice to the defendant (see People v. Daley, 50 A.D.3d 1051, 855 N.Y.S.2d 678).   The defendant's remaining claims of prosecutorial misconduct on summation are unpreserved for appellate review because the defendant either failed to raise any objection, voiced a general objection without specifying the ground therefor, or failed to seek further relief when an objection was sustained or when a curative instruction was provided by the court (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Muniz, 44 A.D.3d 1074, 1075, 844 N.Y.S.2d 396;  People v. Billups, 41 A.D.3d 492, 493, 835 N.Y.S.2d 909).   In any event, the challenged portions of the prosecutor's summation constituted fair response to arguments presented in summation by defense counsel, or fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom (see People v. Applewhite, 50 A.D.3d 1046, 856 N.Y.S.2d 230, lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 955, 863 N.Y.S.2d 139, 893 N.E.2d 445;  People v. Holland, 45 A.D.3d 863, 864, 847 N.Y.S.2d 118).