PEOPLE v. REYNOLDS (2007)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lott, J.), rendered May 17, 2005, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contentions that he was deprived of his rights to a fair trial and to confront witnesses when the trial court permitted a police witness to testify to events leading up to his arrest (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Sealy, 35 A.D.3d 510, 510-511, 826 N.Y.S.2d 358;  People v. Maldonado, 21 A.D.3d 430, 431, 799 N.Y.S.2d 423).   In any event, the testimony that anonymous informants provided the police with sufficient information from which the police identified the defendant as a suspect was not improperly admitted for the truth of the matter asserted, but rather, was admitted to complete the narrative and explain how the police determined the defendant was a suspect and the actions they took to locate him (see People v. Monroe, 216 A.D.2d 494, 628 N.Y.S.2d 398).   Thus, the challenged testimony did not violate the defendant's right to confront witnesses (see People v. Reynoso, 2 N.Y.3d 820, 821, 781 N.Y.S.2d 284, 814 N.E.2d 456;  People v. Ruis, 11 A.D.3d 714, 714-715, 784 N.Y.S.2d 558).   Further, the trial court did not err in permitting the police witness to testify to a prior photo identification of the defendant (see People v. Melendez, 55 N.Y.2d 445, 451, 449 N.Y.S.2d 946, 434 N.E.2d 1324;  People v. Francis, 123 A.D.2d 714, 507 N.Y.S.2d 78).   To the extent that it was error to allow the police witness to testify that the defendant was identified in a lineup and thereafter arrested (see People v. Samuels, 22 A.D.3d 507, 509, 802 N.Y.S.2d 458;  People v. Fields, 309 A.D.2d 945, 766 N.Y.S.2d 365), any error was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, and no significant probability that the error contributed to his conviction (see People v. Johnson, 57 N.Y.2d 969, 970, 457 N.Y.S.2d 230, 443 N.E.2d 478;  People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241-242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787;  People v. Sealy, 35 A.D.3d at 511, 826 N.Y.S.2d 358;  accord People v. Holt, 67 N.Y.2d 819, 821, 501 N.Y.S.2d 641, 492 N.E.2d 769).

Viewing the defense counsel's conduct in its entirety, the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584;  People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400;  People v. Hyatt, 2 A.D.3d 749, 768 N.Y.S.2d 651;  People v. Bradford, 202 A.D.2d 441, 608 N.Y.S.2d 511;  People v. Finch, 199 A.D.2d 278, 604 N.Y.S.2d 222).