Opinion
May 3, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Quinones, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was charged with two push-in burglaries of the 80-year-old complainant's apartment. With respect to the first incident, the complainant failed to promptly notify the police that the defendant was the perpetrator. After a jury trial, the defendant was acquitted with respect to the charges relating to the first incident, but was convicted with respect to the second incident. The defendant contends that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain remarks made by the prosecutor during her summation. As an explanation for the complainant's failure to promptly identify the defendant as the perpetrator of the first incident, the prosecutor portrayed the complainant, who lived in the same apartment building as the defendant and knew him all his life, as subject to intimidation by the other members of the defendant's family. The prosecutor further suggested that the testimony of certain defense witnesses had been "coached". These statements were arguably improper (see, People v Rivera, 116 A.D.2d 371; People v Khan, 101 A.D.2d 867). However, many of the other comments with respect to the complainant's fear of identifying the defendant as his assailant were inferences which could be fairly and properly drawn from the facts in evidence (see, People v Green, 182 A.D.2d 704, 705). In any event, given the unlikelihood that such commentary had a prejudicial effect on the outcome, inasmuch as the defendant was ultimately acquitted on all charges relating to the first incident, reversal is unwarranted on the basis of the impropriety of the challenged remarks (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 242; People v Roopchand, 107 A.D.2d 35, affd 65 N.Y.2d 837).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Miller, O'Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.