Opinion
2000-11054
Argued January 24, 2003.
February 13, 2003.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barbaro, J.), rendered November 27, 2000, convicting him of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Mae C. Quinn of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Anthea H. Bruffee, and Rachelle M. Barstow of counsel), for respondent.
Before: SANDRA J. FEUERSTEIN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, LEO F. McGINITY, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the prosecutor's questioning on cross-examination and suggestion during summation that the defendant tailored his testimony after a discussion with his attorney during the luncheon recess, was not unduly prejudicial (see Portuondo v. Agard, 529 U.S. 61; People v. Lowery, 281 A.D.2d 491). The prosecutor properly attacked the defendant's credibility, and his comments on summation were fair responses to the defense counsel's summation (see People v. Banks, 258 A.D.2d 525, 526; People v. Elliot, 216 A.D.2d 576). As such, the prosecutor's questions and remarks were within the bounds of fair comment.
The court also properly exercised its discretion in preventing defense counsel from straying from the evidence on summation (see People v. Charles, 61 N.Y.2d 321, 329; People v. Laboy, 202 A.D.2d 325).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
FEUERSTEIN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, McGINITY and MASTRO, JJ., concur.