Opinion
July 8, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Katz, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's assertions on appeal, the court did not err in refusing to grant a missing witness charge concerning an alleged witness named Clary. The defendant failed to establish prima facie that, inter alia, Clary was knowledgeable about a material issue ( see, People v. Kitching, 78 N.Y.2d 532, 536; People v. Dianda, 70 N.Y.2d 894, 896).
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review many of his objections to the People's summation ( see, People v. Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858; CPL 470.05). In any event, although certain comments made by the prosecutor were better left unsaid, none of the comments, either alone or in the aggregate, warrant reversal of the defendant's conviction ( see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396; People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105; People v. Bartolomeo, 126 A.D.2d 375).
The defendant's sentence was neither harsh nor 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. Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.