Opinion
2001-1688 K CR.
Decided October 28, 2003.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Criminal Court, Kings County (F. Camacho, J.), rendered December 19, 2001, convicting him, after a jury trial, of assault in the third degree and imposing sentence.
Judgment of conviction unanimously affirmed.
PRESENT: PESCE, P.J., PATTERSON and RIOS, JJ.
Defendant's contention that the prosecutor made improper remarks during summation which require reversal lacks merit. The issue is not preserved for appellate review because the defendant either failed to object to the prosecutor's statements, made only general objections, failed to request curative instructions and did not move for a mistrial ( see CPL 470.05; People v. Dien, 77NY2d 885; People v. McHarris, 297 AD2d 824; People v. Brown, 297 AD2d 819; People v. Holmes, 242 AD2d 278). "In any event, the summation must be examined in the context of that delivered by opposing counsel, and is proper if it is responsive to arguments and issues raised by the defense ( see People v. Russo, 201 AD2d 512, 513, affd 85 NY2d 872; People v. Torres, 121 AD2d 663, 664). Additionally, a prosecutor may engage in fair comment on the evidence and the inferences to be drawn therefrom ( see People v. Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105; People v. Scotti, 220 AD2d 543; People v. Shepherd, 176 AD2d 369, 370). The prosecutor's remarks during summation in this case did not exceed the broad bounds of rhetorical comment allowed in closing argument ( see People v. Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399; People v. Harris, 209 AD2d 432). Rather, the challenged remarks constituted either fair comment upon the evidence presented ( see People v. Ashwal, supra; People v. Scotti, supra) or fair response to the defense summation ( see People v. Irving, 265 AD2d 575, 576)" ( McHarris, 297 AD2d at 825). Defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v. O'Hara, 96 NY2d 378) and, in any event, it lacks merit.