Opinion
July 8, 1991
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Mackston, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The complainant was accosted by three individuals, including the defendant, on his way to work in Hempstead early one morning. Together the perpetrators demanded money from him and attempted to take his gold chain and his wallet. Before they ran away, one of the assailants punched the complainant in the face, causing a cut near his right eye and a bloody nose.
On appeal, the defendant argues that she was denied a fair trial when the court allowed the People to bolster the testimony of an eyewitness to the incident by eliciting prior consistent statements from him on redirect examination. In light of the fact that on cross examination defense counsel created the inference that this witness had recently fabricated his testimony, the People's rehabilitation by prior consistent statements or, in this case, the explanation of certain omissions in his testimony, was not error (see, People v McClean, 69 N.Y.2d 426, 428; People v Melendez, 55 N.Y.2d 445; People v Davis, 44 N.Y.2d 269, 277).
The defendant additionally claims that her conviction should be reversed because the People exercised peremptory challenges in a racially discriminatory manner. However, this issue was not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Jones, 143 A.D.2d 1044; People v Williams, 141 A.D.2d 783) and, in any event, a review of the evidence reveals that the defendant failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination (see, Batson v Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79; People v Kern, 75 N.Y.2d 638, cert denied ___ US ___, 111 S Ct 77; People v Jenkins, 75 N.Y.2d 550; see also, People v Hernandez, 75 N.Y.2d 350, affd 500 US ___, 111 S Ct 1859).
Finally, the defendant's claim that the People's inflammatory summation denied her a fair trial is equally without merit. In general, the People's remarks on summation were either related to the issues within the "`four corners of the evidence'" (People v Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 109) or constituted fair response to the defendant's attacks on the credibility of the People's witnesses (see, People v Centino, 133 A.D.2d 776; People v Medina, 133 A.D.2d 783). Moreover, any possible prejudice resulting from the People's discussion of principles of law during summation was cured by the court's proper instructions in its charge (see, People v Aversa, 156 A.D.2d 371; People v Turner, 141 A.D.2d 878). Kunzeman, J.P., Sullivan, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.