Opinion
January 16, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Lentol, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he was prejudiced by several comments that were made by the prosecutor during his cross-examination of the defense witnesses and during his summation. The majority of the defendant's challenges to the remarks in question are unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05). In any event, the challenged remarks were, for the most part, fair response to the defendant's summation, fair comment on the evidence, or otherwise proper ( see, People v Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105; People v Lee, 209 A.D.2d 723; People v Holland, 204 A.D.2d 483; People v Lamour, 203 A.D.2d 388). The remaining comments were not so prejudicial as to warrant reversal, especially in light of the Supreme Court's curative instructions and the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt ( see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 237; People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396; People v Lee, supra; People v Holland, supra; People v Lamour, supra).
The defendant contends that he was deprived of his constitutional right to the effective assistance of counsel. However, the representation afforded petitioner did not fall below that required by the Constitution ( see, People v Flores, 84 N.Y.2d 184; People v Rivera, 71 N.Y.2d 705, 708; People v Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796; People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137; People v DeFreitas, 213 A.D.2d 96, 101; compare, People v Rojas, 213 A.D.2d 56, 67-68).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit ( see, People v Geattys, 200 A.D.2d 585; People v Whitmore, 123 A.D.2d 336; People v McGuire, 205 A.D.2d 805). Rosenblatt, J.P., Hart, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.