People v. Bethea
Opinion of the Court
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that the Supreme Court improperly failed to conduct a Ventimiglia hearing (see People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350 [1981]) to determine the admissibility of certain testimony regarding a telephone call made by the defendant’s friend to one of the complainants (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]; People v Cody, 149 AD2d 722 [1989]). In any event, such testimony was properly introduced as some evidence of the defendant’s consciousness of guilt (see People v Plummer, 36 NY2d 161, 163-164 [1975]; People v Almestica, 288 AD2d 483 [2001]; People v Pitts, 218 AD2d 715 [1995]). Additionally, the Supreme Court gave the jury proper limiting instructions (see People v Almestica, supra).
The defendant was not denied his right to effective assistance of counsel (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 714 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Ritter, J.P., Goldstein, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.