Opinion
June 19, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (R. Goldberg, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
No reversible error took place by a police officer's testimony explaining his presence at the courtyard of the housing project where the defendant was arrested (see, People v. Estrada, 187 A.D.2d 727; People v. Burrus, 182 A.D.2d 634). The trial court's instructions to the jury that the officer's testimony was admitted only to explain his presence on the scene effectively eliminated any prejudice to the defendant (see, People v. Burrus, supra; People v. Love, 92 A.D.2d 551).
The defendant's challenge to the prosecutor's comments on summation is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Balls, 69 N.Y.2d 641; People v. Bruen, 136 A.D.2d 648). In any event, the prosecutor's comments in the main were a fair response to the defense counsel's own scathing remarks (see, People v Perez, 132 A.D.2d 579). Although, as the People properly concede, some of the language used was inappropriate, the prosecutor's remarks do not warrant reversal (see, People v. White, 196 A.D.2d 641; People v. Street, 124 A.D.2d 841).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
Finally, the defendant's challenge to the mandatory surcharge is premature (see, People v. Burke, 204 A.D.2d 345). Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.