Opinion
May 10, 2000.
Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J. — Burglary, 2nd Degree.
Judgment unanimously affirmed.
PRESENT: GREEN, J. P., WISNER, HURLBUTT AND BALIO, JJ.
Memorandum:
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25), grand larceny in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 155.30) and petit larceny (Penal Law § 155.25). There is no merit to defendant's contentions that the verdict is not supported by legally sufficient evidence and that it is against the weight of the evidence ( see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). Also without merit are the contentions of defendant that he was deprived of a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct on summation and that he was denied effective assistance of counsel prior to and during trial. The allegedly improper comments on summation were fair response to defense counsel's summation ( see, People v. Maddox, 236 A.D.2d 832, 833 , lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1037), and defense counsel provided meaningful representation ( see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147).
Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contentions that the indictment should be dismissed because the prosecutor failed to present to the Grand Jury a composite sketch of the burglar and questioned defendant regarding his criminal background ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Sheltray, 244 A.D.2d 854, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 897). In any event, the Grand Jury proceedings were not rendered defective because the prosecutor failed to present the composite sketch ( see, People v. Lancaster, 69 N.Y.2d 20, 25-26, cert denied 480 U.S. 922; People v. Cullen, 175 A.D.2d 658, 658-659, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 1010) or because defendant was examined with respect to prior felony convictions ( see, People v. Thomas, 213 A.D.2d 73, 76, affd 88 N.Y.2d 821). The prosecutor's questioning of defendant regarding his November 4 arrest for criminal trespass was not improper. The Grand Jury indicted defendant for that offense.
Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contention that the People failed to provide a CPL 710.30 notice regarding a pretrial identification of defendant ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Young, 245 A.D.2d 1063; People v. Heath, 219 A.D.2d 804, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 902, 1020). In any event, there is no merit to that contention. The identification was not arranged by the police ( see, People v. Bello, 219 A.D.2d 657, 658).
We have reviewed the remaining contentions of defendant and conclude that they lack merit.