Opinion
October 27, 1997
Appeal from Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.)
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the comments made by the prosecutor on summation did not constitute reversible error. The prosecutor's statements were, for the most part, either fair comment on the facts adduced at trial ( see, People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105), or an "appropriate response to defense counsel's arguments on summation" ( People v. Acevedo, 156 A.D.2d 569, 570; see also People v. Goodson, 185 A.D.2d 945; People v. Baldo, 107 A.D.2d 751). While some of the prosecutor's remarks would have been better left unsaid, considering the overwhelming evidence against the defendant, any error was harmless ( see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; People v. Mendez, 138 A.D.2d 637; People v. Staley, 130 A.D.2d 601).
Additionally, the court complied with the mandates of Penal Law § 70.10 (2) and adequately set forth on the record the reasons why it was "of the opinion that the history and character of the defendant and the nature and circumstances of his criminal conduct indicate that extended incarceration and lifetime supervision will best serve the public interest" ( see, Penal Law § 70.10; see also, People v. Smith, 232 A.D.2d 586; People v. Gaines, 136 A.D.2d 731, 733; People v. Montes, 118 A.D.2d 812, 813; People v. Oliver, 96 A.D.2d 1104, 1105, and 63 N.Y.2d 973). Moreover, the sentence imposed was not excessive ( see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt.
Miller, J.P., Pizzuto, Altman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.