Opinion
June 8, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J.).
Defendant's claim that the prosecutor made prejudicial remarks during summation is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05; People v. Balls, 69 N.Y.2d 641), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. If we were to review it, we would find that the prosecutor's comment that the police witnesses had "no motive to lie" was a fair response to the defense summation suggesting that the police made bogus drug arrests to relieve "pressure" from the community, and, as such, did not constitute impermissible vouching (People v. Robertson, 192 A.D.2d 447, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 725; see, People v. Emphram, 179 A.D.2d 402, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 947). We would also find that the prosecutor's repeated characterization of defendant as a liar was improper ( People v. Nevedo, 202 A.D.2d 183, 185), but harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt ( People v Hampton, 211 A.D.2d 464, 465).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rubin, Kupferman, Ross and Mazzarelli, JJ.