Opinion
570847/02.
Decided July 22, 2004.
Defendant appeals from a judgment of the Criminal Court, New York County, rendered April 25, 2001 after a jury trial (A. Kirke Bartley, Jr., J.) convicting him of criminal contempt in the second degree (Penal Law § 215.50), and imposing sentence.
Judgment of conviction rendered April 25, 2001 (A. Kirke Bartley, Jr., J.) affirmed.
PRESENT: HON. WILLIAM P. McCOOE, J.P., HON. WILLIAM J. DAVIS, HON. PHYLLIS GANGEL-JACOB, Justices.
Defendant was convicted, following a jury trial, of second-degree criminal contempt (Penal Law § 215.50) upon proof — now unchallenged on sufficiency or weight of the evidence grounds — that he violated the unambiguous terms of an extant order of protection prohibiting him, inter alia, from interfering with the complainant when, unprovoked, he spit on the complainant in a common area of the public housing complex in which they both reside.
Defendant's present evidentiary arguments are largely unpreserved, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review, we would find that the brief, isolated evidence concerning the complainant's cognitive impairment was properly admitted as relevant background material to explain the victim's behavior and to set a proper context for his testimony. No undue prejudice befell the defendant, particularly given the defense acknowledgment during opening statements that the complainant was in fact "developmentally disabled".
Also largely unpreserved for appellate review are defendant's challenges to the prosecutor's summation, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find no basis for reversal. Although some of the prosecutor's comments could be perceived as vouching for the credibility of the witnesses, even if improper, they did not deprive defendant of a fair trial ( see People v. Massie, 305 AD2d 116, 117, affd 2 NY3d 179). Further, the court sustained defendant's objection to the prosecutor's one-time statement to the jury that "justice [need] be done" in this case, and the comment, while inappropriate, was not unduly prejudicial ( see People v. Cuevas, 232 AD2d 234, 235).
Since the record establishes that defendant did not exhaust all of his peremptory challenges prior to the completion of the selection of the regular jury, his claim that the court erred in denying his challenge for cause is foreclosed ( see People v. White, 297 AD2d 587, 588, lv denied 99 NY2d 565). In any event, the denial of defendant's challenge for cause was proper. Although the juror initially called into question his ability to be impartial, the juror ultimately gave a specific and unequivocal assurance of impartiality that was credited by the court ( see People v. Chambers, 97 NY2d 417).
Defendant's remaining arguments are either unpreserved for appellate review or are lacking in merit.
This constitutes the decision and order of the court.