Opinion
March 24, 1997.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Appelman, J.), rendered April 26, 1990, convicting him of criminal mischief in the fourth degree and possession of burglar's tools, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Before: Sullivan, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and McGinity, JJ.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence at trial was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt is partly unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245). In any event, his contention lacks merit. Viewing the evidence adduced at trial in the light most favorable to the People ( see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish 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).
The defendant's challenges to the prosecutor's summation, also, are largely unpreserved for appellate review. In any event, upon consideration of the record as a whole ( see, People v D'Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114), we conclude that the prosecutor's summation did not deny the defendant his fundamental right to a fair trial. The prosecutor's remarks constituted an appropriate response to the defense counsel's summation and fair comment on the evidence ( see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105; People v Ceus, 207 AD2d 905; People v Pruna, 177 AD2d 519).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.