From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Cudak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 26, 1989
151 A.D.2d 770 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

June 26, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Pitaro, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by the prosecutor's allegedly prejudicial comments made during her summation lacks merit. Many of the remarks were unobjected to at trial, and therefore any claim of error with respect thereto is not preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05). In any event, the record reveals that most of the comments made during the prosecutor's summation stayed within the four corners of the evidence (see, People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 109), or constituted a fair response to defense counsel's summation (see, People v. Street, 124 A.D.2d 841). To the extent that the prosecutor's remarks may have been improper, in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, we find that they did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396).

The defendant's request for a waiver of the mandatory surcharge is premature (see, People v. Smallwood, 140 A.D.2d 646; People v Williams, 131 A.D.2d 525). Brown, J.P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Cudak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jun 26, 1989
151 A.D.2d 770 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

People v. Cudak

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JAMES CUDAK, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Jun 26, 1989

Citations

151 A.D.2d 770 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Citing Cases

People v. Teele

(CPL 420.35.) Further, we note that defendant apparently paid the surcharge, and never sought a waiver at the…