Opinion
May 11, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Weissman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We reject the defendant's contention that the hearing court erred in denying that branch of her omnibus motion which was to suppress her confession. The question of the voluntariness of the defendant's statements presented an issue of credibility for the hearing court to resolve, and its determination that the statements were not the product of coercion or an overborne will is fully supported by the record and therefore should not be disturbed (see, People v. Rivera, 171 A.D.2d 708, 709; People v McCallum, 157 A.D.2d 861, 862).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by the prosecutor's conduct during cross-examination and summation also lacks merit. Insofar as the cross-examination is concerned, the defense counsel's objections to the two instances cited were immediately sustained and the defendant made no request for curative instructions or any other relief. Thus, we conclude that the alleged errors were corrected to the defendant's satisfaction (see, People v. Santiago, 52 N.Y.2d 865; People v. Williams, 175 A.D.2d 273). As to the prosecutor's summation, the allegedly improper remarks were not objected to by defense counsel and thus the claim of error with respect thereto is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 248-252). In any event, the record indicates that the prosecutor's summation was a fair response to the defendant's summation, in which defense counsel repeatedly challenged the credibility of the People's witnesses (see, People v. Lee, 167 A.D.2d 354; People v. Singleton, 121 A.D.2d 752, 753).
The sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.