Opinion
January 27, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Groh, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
The People's witness's testimony was neither incredible as a matter of law nor patently tailored to avoid constitutional objections (see, People v Berrios, 28 N.Y.2d 361; People v Hardy, 106 A.D.2d 403; People v Parmiter, 55 A.D.2d 938; People v Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86). Thus, the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant was guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16).
The defendant also contends that the denial of his request for an adjournment to obtain the presence of a witness was an abuse of discretion. The record discloses that the defendant had more than sufficient time to serve the witness with a subpoena to ensure his presence at the trial.
Finally, we have considered defendant's assertions of impropriety in the prosecutor's summation and find that those claims of error were not preserved for appellate review, as no objections were taken thereto (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, the comments were a fair response to remarks made by defense counsel in summation (see, People v Anthony, 24 N.Y.2d 696; People v Marks, 6 N.Y.2d 67, cert denied 362 U.S. 912; People v Blackman, 88 A.D.2d 620). Gibbons, J.P., Bracken, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.