Opinion
00-05184
Argued April 19, 2002
May 28, 2002.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.), rendered May 30, 2000, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. and Arnold Porter, New York, N.Y. (Dorothy N. Giobbe of counsel), for appellant (one brief filed).
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Jodi L. Mandel, and Lisa F. Muller of counsel), for respondent.
SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, J.P., CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, THOMAS A. ADAMS, BARRY A. COZIER, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court improperly charged the jury on the burden of proof is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05; People v. Saez, 238 A.D.2d 610). In any event, the charge, when viewed in its entirety, conveyed the appropriate legal principles and, thus, did not constitute reversible error (see People v. Walton, 220 A.D.2d 548; People v. Perez, 210 A.D.2d 264; People v. Brown, 209 A.D.2d 428).
The various remarks made by the prosecutor in his closing statements, which the defendant contends are improper, were either fair comment on the evidence, permissive rhetorical comment, responsive to defense counsel's summation (see People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105; People v. Sostre, 282 A.D.2d 766), not so prejudicial as to constitute reversible error in light of the prompt curative instructions given by the court, or harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; People v. Williams, 247 A.D.2d 643).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit.
FEUERSTEIN, J.P., O'BRIEN, ADAMS and COZIER, JJ., concur.