[*1]
People v Ortiz (German)
2013 NY Slip Op 50580(U) [39 Misc 3d 135(A)]
Decided on April 11, 2013
Appellate Term, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.


Decided on April 11, 2013
SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE TERM, FIRST DEPARTMENT

PRESENT: Lowe, III, P.J., Shulman, Torres, JJ
570017/07.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, - -

against

German Ortiz, Defendant-Appellant.


Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (ShawnDya L. Simpson, J.), rendered May 4, 2006, after a jury trial, convicting him of sexual abuse in the third degree, and imposing sentence.


Per Curiam.

Judgment of conviction (ShawnDya L. Simpson, J.), rendered May 4, 2006, affirmed.

The territorial jurisdiction of the State to prosecute defendant for the underlying sexual abuse charge was established through the credited testimony of the victim and her sister, which showed beyond a reasonable doubt that the offensive touching occurred at a point in time when the bus in which the two were passengers was on the New York side of the Lincoln Tunnel (see CPL 20.20[1][a]; see generally People v McLaughlin, 80 NY2d 466 [1992]). Since defendant made only a generalized objection, his current hearsay challenge to the admission of the bus driver's statement with respect to the location of the bus is unpreserved (see People v Rosas, 306 AD2d 91 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 645 [2003]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. The bus driver's statement was properly admitted under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule, where the statement was a spontaneous description of events as they were unfolding (see People v Vasquez, 88 NY2d 561, 574 [1996]) and was sufficiently corroborated by other evidence (see id.; People v Brown, 80 NY2d 729, 734 [1993]).

Defendant's claims of error regarding the prosecutor's summation comments are similarly unpreserved and do not warrant interest of justice review. As an alternative holding, we would find that none of the cited comments exceeded the broad latitude accorded on summation (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concurI concurI concur
Decision Date: April 11, 2013