Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant argues that evidence of an out-of-court statement made by the complaining witness was improperly admitted and that a new trial is therefore warranted. This argument is not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, we agree with the People that the evidence of this out-of-court statement was properly admitted as an "excited utterance" (see, e.g., People v Hood,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.