Opinion
June 22, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lagana, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the prosecutor's comments on summation were tantamount to calling him a liar. This issue has not been preserved for our review as a matter of law (see, People v Lafayette, 118 A.D.2d 593). In any event, we find this contention to be unsupported by the record. The prosecutor's comments regarding the defendant's failure to admit his presence in the restaurant in question were not improper. The prosecutor merely sought to point out inconsistencies between the defendant's testimony and the testimony of the complaining witness. This is not a case in which the prosecutor resorted to name-calling, nor in which the prosecutor characterized the defendant as a liar (see, People v Shanis, 36 N.Y.2d 697; People v Jones, 104 A.D.2d 826; People v Alston, 77 A.D.2d 906). The defendant was not prejudiced by any prosecutorial remarks and was not deprived of a fair trial (see, People v Roopchand, 65 N.Y.2d 837). Eiber, J.P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.