PEOPLE v. MUNGO

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court properly admitted the statements made by the decedent naming the defendant as his assailant under the excited utterance exception to the hearsay rule (see, People v. Fratello, 92 N.Y.2d 565, cert denied 526 U.S. 1068; People v. Brown, 70 N.Y.2d 513, 522; People v. Edwards, 47 N.Y.2d 493). The surrounding circumstances reasonably justify the conclusion that the decedent's remarks were not made under the impetus of studied reflection and that the decedent was still under the continuing stress and excitement of the shooting (see, People v. Fratello, supra; People v. Cotto, 92 N.Y.2d 68; People v. Brown, supra; People v. Edwards, supra; People v. Johnson, 272 A.D.2d 555; People v. Evans, 183 A.D.2d 780).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).