Opinion
December 27, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sherman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that he was precluded from testifying as to his state of mind is without merit. Where a defendant's state of mind is at issue, the defendant is entitled to testify concerning it (see, People v Rivera, 101 A.D.2d 981, 982, affd 65 N.Y.2d 661). In the present case, although the trial court restricted the defendant's testimony, the defendant was afforded ample opportunity to testify regarding his mental state.
Moreover, the challenged comments in the prosecutor's summation were either within the bounds of permissible rhetorical comment, were responsive to the defendant's summation, constituted fair comment on the evidence, or were fairly inferable from the evidence (see, People v Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105; People v Miller, 183 A.D.2d 790; People v Wilson, 173 A.D.2d 751).
Finally, there is no merit to the defendant's argument that his sentence was excessive (see, People v Suite, 90 A.D.2d 80). Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.