Opinion
February 29, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Farlo, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Under the circumstances of this case, it cannot be said that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant's application for the assignment of new counsel, since good cause therefor was not shown. The defendant's application for new assigned counsel was first stated during jury selection and his criticism of counsel was not made with sufficient specificity to be evaluated (see, People v Medina, 44 N.Y.2d 199; People v Leach, 108 A.D.2d 871). The defendant's claim that counsel was not familiar with his case is belied by the record which showed that counsel had represented the defendant for more than one year prior to the trial.
We also reject the defendant's contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel. The defense counsel presented cogent opening and closing arguments, conducted extensive cross-examination of the witnesses both at the Wade hearing and during trial, and raised appropriate objections. In addition, counsel made an effective presentation at sentencing, providing the court with a presentence memorandum and a psychiatric report, and speaking to numerous points raised by the Probation Department's presentence report. Thus, the defendant was provided with effective representation both at trial and at sentencing (see, People v Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796; People v Lane, 60 N.Y.2d 748; People v Cartagena, 128 A.D.2d 797, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 798).
We do not agree with the defendant's contention that he was denied a fair trial by certain allegedly prejudicial statements made by the prosecutor during summation. Some of the remarks were responsive to similar remarks made in the defense counsel's summation (see, People v Blackman, 88 A.D.2d 620) and any potential prejudice was minimized by specific curative instructions from the trial court (see, People v Williams, 46 N.Y.2d 1070; People v Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105; People v Baldo, 107 A.D.2d 751). Moreover, the prosecutor's comments were not so egregious or pervasive as to prejudice the defendant's case, and the proof of the defendant's guilt was overwhelming (see, People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 401; People v Roopchand, 107 A.D.2d 35, 36, affd 65 N.Y.2d 837).
We decline to disturb the sentence imposed upon the defendant as it was within the bounds of the applicable sentencing statute and not excessive (see, People v Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302; People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Brown, Lawrence and Weinstein, JJ., concur.