PEOPLE v. MACK (2005)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.), rendered April 22, 2003, convicting him of burglary in the first degree and robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 The defendant contends that he was denied his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him because a detective testified that he arrested the defendant after a conversation with his accomplice, who did not testify at trial.   Although the defendant objected to that testimony and moved for a mistrial, he did not specify the ground now raised on appeal and failed to object to the court's remedy.   Therefore, the issue is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Fleming, 70 N.Y.2d 947, 524 N.Y.S.2d 670, 519 N.E.2d 616;  People v. Perez, 9 A.D.3d 376, 377, 779 N.Y.S.2d 584;  People v. Moreno, 303 A.D.2d 424, 755 N.Y.S.2d 868;  People v. Hughes, 251 A.D.2d 513, 674 N.Y.S.2d 402).

 In any event, although the challenged testimony was improper, since it implied that the accomplice implicated the defendant in the crime (see People v. Latta, 295 A.D.2d 449, 743 N.Y.S.2d 315), the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787;  People v. Latta, supra ).