The defendant's contentions that he was deprived of a fair trial as a result of impermissible hearsay testimony elicited from the defendant's girlfriend, a police investigator, and a physician who examined the complainant, are without merit. The girlfriend's challenged testimony was properly admitted under the prompt outcry exception to the hearsay rule (see People v Kattau, 192 A.D.3d 910, 911), the challenged testimony of the police investigator was admissible as necessary background information to demonstrate what ultimately led to the defendant's arrest (see People v Ludwig, 24 N.Y.3d 221, 231-232; People v Mandes, 168 A.D.3d 764, 765), and the challenged testimony of the physician was "'germane to diagnosis and treatment' and, therefore, 'properly admitted as an exception to the hearsay rule'" (People v Kattau, 192 A.D.3d at 911, quoting People v Spicola, 16 N.Y.3d 441, 451).

The defendant's contentions that he was deprived of a fair trial as a result of impermissible hearsay testimony elicited from the defendant's girlfriend, a police investigator, and a physician who examined the complainant, are without merit. The girlfriend's challenged testimony was properly admitted under the prompt outcry exception to the hearsay rule (seePeople v. Kattau, 192 A.D.3d 910, 911, 140 N.Y.S.3d 742 ), the challenged testimony of the police investigator was admissible as necessary background information to demonstrate what ultimately led to the defendant's arrest (seePeople v. Ludwig, 24 N.Y.3d 221, 231–232, 997 N.Y.S.2d 351, 21 N.E.3d 1012 ; People v. Mandes, 168 A.D.3d 764, 765, 91 N.Y.S.3d 194 ), and

Disposition: Applications for Criminal Leave to appeal denied Decision Reported Below: 2d Dept: 192 A.D.3d 910 (Suffolk)

To the extent that the prosecutor’s remarks were improper, they were not so flagrant or pervasive as to have deprived the defendant of a fair trial (see People v. Komynar, 210 A.D.3d 698, 700, 177 N.Y.S.3d 672; People v. Kattau, 192 A.D.3d 910, 913, 140 N.Y.S.3d 742).

The defendant's contentions regarding certain remarks and commentary made by the prosecutor during trial are largely unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 911, 912; People v Thomas, 200 A.D.3d 912, 914). To the extent that the prosecutor's remarks were improper, they were not so flagrant or pervasive as to have deprived the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Komynar, 210 A.D.3d 698, 700; People v Kattau, 192 A.D.3d 910, 913).

The defendant's contention that certain remarks by the prosecutor during summation were improper is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 911, 912; People v Thomas, 200 A.D.3d 912, 914). In any event, the challenged remarks were fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom or responsive to defense counsel's summation, or otherwise did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Kattau, 192 A.D.3d 910, 913).

[7] The defendant’s contention that certain remarks by the prosecutor during summation were improper is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 911, 912, 828 N.Y.S.2d 274, 861 N.E.2d 89 [2006]; People v. Thomas, 200 A.D.3d 912, 914, 155 N.Y.S.3d 365 [2d Dept. 2021]). In any event, the challenged remarks were fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom or responsive to defense counsel’s summation, or otherwise did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v. Kattau, 192 A.D.3d 910, 913, 140 N.Y.S.3d 742 [2d Dept. 2021]). The defendant received meaningful representation from his trial counsel (see People v. Gross, 26 N.Y.3d 689, 693, 27 N.Y.S.3d 459, 47 N.E.3d 738 [2016]; People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 712, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 [1998]).

The defendant's contention that the prosecutor's summation remarks were improper is partially unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 911, 912; People v Thomas, 200 A.D.3d 912, 914). In any event, the challenged comments were fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom or responsive to defense counsel's summation, or otherwise did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Kattau, 192 A.D.3d 910, 913).

The defendant's contention that the prosecutor's summation remarks were improper is partially unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 911, 912, 828 N.Y.S.2d 274, 861 N.E.2d 89 ; People v. Thomas, 200 A.D.3d 912, 914, 155 N.Y.S.3d 365 ). In any event, the challenged comments were fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom or responsive to defense counsel's summation, or otherwise did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (seePeople v. Kattau, 192 A.D.3d 910, 913, 140 N.Y.S.3d 742 ). Contrary to the defendant's contention, the verdict sheet, which included statutory language to distinguish the counts of sex trafficking from each other, was proper (see CPL 310.20[2] ; People v. O'Kane, 30 N.Y.3d 669, 672, 70 N.Y.S.3d 877, 94 N.E.3d 440 ).