Opinion
October 24, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), 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 (CPL 470.15; People v. Allah, 71 N.Y.2d 830; People v. La Belle, 18 N.Y.2d 405; People v. Ramos, 166 A.D.2d 468).
The court did not err in ruling that the defendant could be impeached by a post-arrest statement he made that was suppressed as having been taken in violation of his Miranda rights (see, People v. Maerling, 64 N.Y.2d 134; People v. Padron, 134 A.D.2d 625).
Although several comments by the prosecutor during summation would have been better left unsaid, even if this Court were to reach all of the alleged errors asserted by the defendant, including those unpreserved for appellate review, they would not warrant reversal of the defendant's judgment of conviction (see, People v. Whalen, 59 N.Y.2d 273; People v. Bailey, 58 N.Y.2d 272; People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105; People v. Conners, 149 A.D.2d 722; People v. Torriente, 131 A.D.2d 793).
The trial court properly denied the defendant's request to charge the jury on circumstantial evidence. A jury must be instructed with regard to circumstantial evidence only when the evidence of guilt is solely circumstantial, which was not the case here (see, People v. Ford, 66 N.Y.2d 428; People v Rodriguez, 135 A.D.2d 586, lv. denied 70 N.Y.2d 1010).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J.P., Copertino, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.