Opinion
November 17, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to various remarks made by the prosecutor during summation are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Nuccie, 57 N.Y.2d 818; People v. Scotti, 220 A.D.2d 543). Our review of the record reveals that the prosecutor's summation did not exceed the broad bounds of fair comment upon the evidence ( see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396; cf., People v. Wright, 41 N.Y.2d 172) and was, in part, in response to defense counsel's own arguments during summation ( see, People v. Galloway, supra; People v. Rodriguez, 124 A.D.2d 611). Equally unpersuasive is the defendant's argument that the court gave an improper jury charge ( see, People v. Rumble, 45 N.Y.2d 879).
In addition, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in continuing the trial in the absence of the defendant after the defendant had engaged in conduct disruptive of the proceedings and after he was warned by the court that he would be removed if he continued such conduct ( see, People v Johnson, 37 N.Y.2d 778; People v. Walnut, 224 A.D.2d 463; People v. Jefferson, 211 A.D.2d 825).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Rosenblatt, J. P., Copertino, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.