Opinion
May 18, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the prosecutor's summation is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, People v. Comer, 73 N.Y.2d 955, 956-957; People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951, 953; People v. Lewis, 175 A.D.2d 885, 886; People v. Escalera, 220 A.D.2d 259). In any event, upon consideration of the record as a whole ( see, People v. D'Alessandro, 184 A.D.2d 114), this claim is without merit. The prosecutor's remarks constituted fair comment on the evidence and were an appropriate response to defense counsel's summation ( see, People v. Ceus, 207 A.D.2d 905; People v. Kirkland, 199 A.D.2d 54, 55; People v. Wright, 182 A.D.2d 793; People v. Pruna, 177 A.D.2d 519; People v. Lewis, supra).
Likewise unpreserved for appellate review is the defendant's contention that the trial court's justification charge was improper because, in explaining the objective portion of the charge, it failed to reiterate or refer to the factors it set forth in its explanation of the subjective portion of the charge ( see, People v. Bernard, 222 A.D.2d 599; People v. Noor, 177 A.D.2d 517). In any event, the court's charge to the jury on the defense of justification ( see, Penal Law § 35.15) was proper, as the court employed the charge recommended in the pattern jury instructions ( see, 1 CJI[NY] PL 35.15 [2] [a], at 871-873; People v. Bernard, supra).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions raised in his prose supplemental brief are without merit.
Bracken, J.P., O'Brien, Copertino and Altman, JJ., concur.