PEOPLE v. HOPKINS

Contrary to defendant's claim on appeal, the court did not err in allowing the defendant's son to testify under oath. The court conducted an extensive voir dire of the 9 1/2 year old, and the boy's responses support the finding that he was capable of understanding the nature of an oath (People v Graham, 180 A.D.2d 438, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1001; CPL 60.20). Further, as the boy's testimony was corroborated by other witnesses, including his younger brother, the court's verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.

Defendant's remaining claims are either unpreserved or without merit.

Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Rubin, JJ.