Reginald Persaud, Ossining, N.Y., appellant pro se. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Jodi L. Mandel, and Holly L. Serrette of counsel), for respondent. Application by the appellant for a writ of error coram nobis to vacate, on the ground of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel, a decision and order of this Court dated March 24, 1997 ( People v. Persaud, 237 A.D.2d 538, 656 N.Y.S.2d 34), affirming a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered March 10, 1995. ORDERED that the application is denied.
05; People v. Medina, 53 NY2d 951, 953; People v. O'Henry, 13 AD3d 470, lv denied 4 NY3d 801). In any event, the comments objected to either were a fair response to remarks made by the defense counsel during summation, or a fair comment on the evidence ( see People v. Stith, 291 AD2d 576; People v. Persaud, 237 AD2d 538; People v. Turner, 141 AD2d 878).
People v. Cowan, 193 A.D.2d 753, 754). The defendant's contention concerning the prosecutor's allegedly improper summation comments is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant either did not object or made only a general objection at trial ( see People v. Tevaha, 84 N.Y.2d 879, 881; People v. Persaud, 237 A.D.2d 538). In any event, most of the challenged remarks either were fair comment on the evidence or were made in response to the defense counsel's arguments on summation, and none of the remarks was so prejudicial as to require reversal ( see People v. Hilliard, 279 A.D.2d 590).
The defendant's contention that certain improper remarks made by the prosecutor during summation require reversal is unpreserved for appellate review as he either did not object to the remarks, his objection was sustained without a request for a curative instruction, or his objection was sustained and, upon the court's issuance of a curative instruction, he did not request a further instruction or request a mistrial ( see CPL 470.05; People v. Heide, 84 N.Y.2d 943, 944; People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951, 953; People v. Persaud, 237 A.D.2d 538). We decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
This evidence was properly admitted as relevant background material to enable the jury to understand the defendant's relationship with the complainant and explain the issuance of an order of protection, and as evidence of the defendant's motive in the commission of the charged crimes (see, People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264; People v. Wright, 288 A.D.2d 409; People v. Howard, 285 A.D.2d 560; People v. Shorey, 172 A.D.2d 634). The defendant's claim that certain comments made by the prosecutor during summation improperly appealed to the sympathy of the jury and denigrated defense counsel is largely unpreserved for appellate review because his objections to most of these comments were sustained without any request for curative instructions (see, People v. Tevaha, 84 N.Y.2d 879; People v. Robinson, 281 A.D.2d 564; People v. Sherwood, 279 A.D.2d 486; People v. Persaud, 237 A.D.2d 538). With respect to the two comments that were the subject of the defendant's mistrial motion, reversal is not warranted because any prejudice these remarks may have caused was dissipated by the curative instructions given when objections to them were sustained and by the charge to the jury (see, People v. Brown, 272 A.D.2d 338; People v. Dhan, 271 A.D.2d 452). KRAUSMAN, J.P., McGINITY, H. MILLER and ADAMS, JJ., concur.
In any event, the prosecutor's remarks concerning credibility were made in response to the defense counsel's comments on credibility and the conflicts between the testimony of the prosecution's witnesses and the defendant's testimony. As such, the prosecutor's remarks were a fair response to the defense counsel's summation (see, People v. Thomas, 186 A.D.2d 602; People v. Persaud, 237 A.D.2d 538). Furthermore, they were harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230). The defendant's contention that he received ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 173).
The defendant either did not object to the comments in question, made only general objections, or his objections were sustained without any request for further curative instructions or a timely motion for a mistrial (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Tevaha, 84 N.Y.2d 879; People v. Heide, 84 N.Y.2d 943; People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951;People v. Persaud, 237 A.D.2d 538; People v. Bruen, 136 A.D.2d 648, 649). In any event, the defendant's contentions are without merit and any alleged error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241-242).
He either failed to object to the remarks, made only a general objection, or his objections were sustained without any further request for curative instructions or a timely motion for mistrial (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Tevaha, 84 N.Y.2d 879; People v. Heide, 84 N.Y.2d 943; People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951; People v. Persaud, 237 A.D.2d 538). In any event, the defendant's contentions are largely without merit, and any error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241-242).
We disagree. The court's reasonable doubt charge, which mirrored the charge set forth in 1 CJI(NY) 6.20, conveyed the proper standard of proof and did not improperly shift the burden of proof ( see, People v. Pochily, 255 A.D.2d 695, 696, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 856; People v. Persaud, 237 A.D.2d 538, 539, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 1098). The court's circumstantial evidence charge properly instructed the jury "that it must appear that the inference of guilt is the only one that can fairly and reasonably be drawn from the facts, and that the evidence excludes beyond a reasonable doubt every reasonable hypothesis of innocence" ( People v. Sanchez, 61 N.Y.2d 1022, 1024; see, People v. Ford, 66 N.Y.2d 428, 441; People v. Davis, 206 A.D.2d 833, 834, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 934).
The defendant's contention that certain statements made by the prosecutor on summation constituted reversible error is largely unpreserved for appellate review since he failed to object or did not object with sufficient specificity, failed to ask for curative instructions, or failed to request a mistrial when they were made (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Antonio, 255 A.D.2d 449; People v. Persaud, 237 A.D.2d 538). In any event, his contention is without merit since the prosecutor' s statements were either fair comment on the facts adduced at trial (see, People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 10 5), a fair response to the defense counsel's arguments on summation (see, People v. Scotti, 220 A.D.2d 5 43; People v. Rosario, 195 A.D.2d 577), or do not require reversal.