Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court did not err in finding that the complainant's statements on a recording of his telephone call to the 911 emergency number were excited utterances and therefore admissible ( see People v Johnson, 1 NY3d 302, 306; People v Gantt, 48 AD3d 59; People v Blackman, 13 AD3d 640, 641; People v Prashad, 297 AD2d 352; cf. People v Carroll, 95 NY2d 375, 385; People v Vasquez, 88 NY2d 561, 579).