Opinion
April 4, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dunkin, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded the evidence presented, are generally matters for resolution by the jury (see, People v. Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).
We also find that the court, in instructing the jury, made a meaningful effort to relate the law of justification to the facts of this case (see, CPL 300.10) and that the justification charge was proper (see, People v. Goetz, 68 N.Y.2d 96, 115). Although the defendant is entitled to the most favorable view of the evidence in determining which defenses are to be incorporated into the court's charge (see, People v. Torre, 42 N.Y.2d 1036, 1037), a reasonable view of the evidence does not support a finding that the victim was attempting to commit or was committing a robbery (see, Penal Law § 35.15 [b]).
The defendant failed to preserve the points of alleged prosecutorial misconduct for appellate review (CPL 470.05). He either failed to object, or if his objection was sustained, and the court struck the comments objected to, he failed to ask for further curative instructions, indicating that he was satisfied with the court's action (see, People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951, 952). In any event, the prosecutor's remarks during summation were appropriate in view of the defense counsel's summation remarks (see, People v. Singleton, 121 A.D.2d 752, 753, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 918).
Finally, contrary to the defendant's contention, the rebuttal testimony was admissible (see, People v. Schwartzman, 24 N.Y.2d 241, 245, cert denied 396 U.S. 846). Thompson, J.P., Brown, Weinstein and Balletta, JJ., concur.