Opinion
April 6, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ferdinand, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that improper comments made by the prosecutor during summation constituted reversible error. By failing to specifically object to most of these comments at trial, the defendant did not preserve this contention for appellate review as to those comments ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Wirts, 178 A.D.2d 165). Moreover, the comments with respect to which any alleged error was preserved were proper responses to arguments that the defense counsel had made during summation ( see, People v. Morris, 246 A.D.2d 559; People v. Lamour, 203 A.D.2d 388), may be characterized as fair comment on the evidence ( see, People v. Hill, 176 A.D.2d 755, 756), or were not so prejudicial as to constitute reversible error, especially in light of the court's curative instructions ( see, People v. Ferrara, 220 A.D.2d 612; People v. Rivera, 142 A.D.2d 614).
Furthermore, the court did not err in denying the defendant's application for a mistrial based on the partial testimony of a prosecution witness who began to relate reports of past acts of violence committed by the defendant. Whether to grant a request for a mistrial rests within the sound discretion of the trial court ( see, People v. Ortiz, 54 N.Y.2d 288), which is in the best position to determine if it is necessary to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial ( see, People v. Cooper, 173 A.D.2d 551). In any event, the court sustained the defendant's objection to the testimony.
The sentence imposed upon the defendant was neither harsh nor excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
Joy, J.P., Krausman, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.