Opinion
May 16, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Balbach, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to support the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
We find that, upon reviewing the entire charge, the court properly instructed the jury on reasonable doubt (see, People v Canty, 60 N.Y.2d 830; People v Yanik, 43 N.Y.2d 97, on remand 63 A.D.2d 574; People v Blackshear, 112 A.D.2d 1044, lv denied 66 N.Y.2d 917; People v Navarro, 104 A.D.2d 958; People v Cruz, 97 A.D.2d 518).
We also find the statements made by the prosecutor which the defendant contends constituted prosecutorial misconduct were either proper responses to the defense summation (see, People v Street, 124 A.D.2d 841, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 834; People v Freeman, 123 A.D.2d 784, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 711), properly cured by appropriate curative instructions (People v Arce, 42 N.Y.2d 179), or not preserved for appellate review due to defense counsel's acquiescence in the curative instructions given by the court (People v Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951, 953; People v Jalah, 107 A.D.2d 762).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find that they are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit (see, People v Santana, 125 A.D.2d 427, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 960; People v Torres, 118 A.D.2d 821, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 672). Mollen, P.J., Thompson, Rubin and Spatt, JJ., concur.