Opinion
May 24, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dabiri, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that reversible error took place because the Trial Judge improperly permitted the People to cross-examine the sole defense witness, his girlfriend of seven years, regarding a prior incident in which he was charged with assaulting her. The cross-examination was relevant to the issue of the defendant's intent (see, People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233).
The defendant next contends that certain of the prosecutor's remarks during summation require reversal. The challenged comments, for the most part, were fair response to the defense summation, referred to matters within the four corners of the evidence, or were otherwise proper (see, People v. Velasquez, 205 A.D.2d 716; People v. Haynes, 189 A.D.2d 894). Furthermore, the Trial Judge promptly issued curative instructions which were sufficient to dissipate any potential prejudice (see, People v. Stith, 215 A.D.2d 789).
The sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
O'Brien, J. P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Smith, JJ., concur.