People v. Beharry

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Guzman, J.), rendered September 21, 2012, convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. The defendant’s contention that certain testimony regarding *870 his intoxication was improperly elicited is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Jackson, 100 AD3d 1018 [2012]). In any event, the Supreme Court did not err in allowing a police officer to testify as to his opinion regarding whether the defendant was intoxicated (see People v Bennett, 238 AD2d 898, 899 [1997]; People v Bost, 133 AD2d 930 [1987]). The court also did not err in permitting a paramedic to offer an expert opinion with respect to the defendant’s intoxication, since his testimony related to matters beyond the ken of the typical juror (see People v Davis, 118 AD3d 906, 907 [2014]; People v Fernandez, 78 AD3d 726 [2010]). The defendant’s contention with respect to the prosecutor’s summation is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, without merit. Rivera, J.P., Balkin, Barros and Connolly, JJ., concur.