Opinion
May 16, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin Weissberg, J.).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and giving them the benefit of every reasonable inference (People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932), there was ample proof to support the finding that defendant's sneakers constituted a dangerous instrument within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (13) (see, People v Carter, 53 N.Y.2d 113; People v Scipio, 169 A.D.2d 596, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 966), and, upon an independent review of the facts, such a finding clearly was not against the weight of the evidence (People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490). The credibility of the eyewitness bystander, who testified that he observed defendant wearing sneakers stomp the victim on the head while he was laying on the ground covered in blood, was properly placed before the jury, and we find no reason to disturb its determination.
Defendant's eve-of-trial application to discharge his assigned counsel was properly denied for failure to show good cause for a substitution (People v Robinson, 203 A.D.2d 165, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 971).
Defendant's claim that he was deprived of a fair trial by the prosecutor's comment on summation concerning his decision not to testify is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. In any event, if we were to review, we would find that the comments in question were a fair response to defendant's summation (People Carraquillo, 202 A.D.2d 253, 254, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 823), and did not shift the burden of proof.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Ross, Nardelli, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.