Opinion
April 19, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Berkowitz, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We reject the defendant's claim that the indictment against him should have been dismissed because the charges against one of his codefendants were reduced to a misdemeanor, and later adjourned in contemplation of dismissal. The "mere unequal application of a statute fair on its face does not of itself violate equal protection and * * * only purposeful or intentional discrimination is prohibited" (People v Acme Mkts., 37 N.Y.2d 326, 330-331, citing Snowden v Hughes, 321 U.S. 1, 8; People v Goodman, 31 N.Y.2d 262). The defendant failed to establish not only "that the law was not applied to others similarly situated but also that the selective application * * * was deliberately based upon an impermissible standard such as race, religion or some other arbitrary classification" (Matter of 303 W. 42nd St. Corp. v Klein, 46 N.Y.2d 686, 693).
The defendant's contention concerning the remarks made by the prosecutor during summation is unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05; People v Oliver, 63 N.Y.2d 973), and, in any event, without merit (People v Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105; People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396). Eiber, J.P., O'Brien, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.