Opinion
June 13, 1988
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Lomanto, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find that the People met their burden of proving the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, notwithstanding the fact that the entire case was based on circumstantial evidence since the evidence excluded every reasonable hypothesis of innocence (see, People v Sanchez, 61 N.Y.2d 1022, 1024). While the defendant sought to advance another explanation for his presence at the crime scene, we see no reason to overturn the jury's verdict which indicated their disbelief of the defendant. Great respect is to be accorded to the jurors' resolution of issues of the credibility of the witnesses, since they are in the best position to make these determinations (see, People v Gruttola, 43 N.Y.2d 116). Furthermore, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
Since defense counsel voiced no objection to the prosecutor's summation, the issue of whether or not the prosecutor improperly vouched for the People's witnesses is not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951). In any event, we find the prosecutor's statements were either a fair response to remarks made by the defense counsel in his summation (see, People v Hayes, 116 A.D.2d 737, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 884) or a proper comment on the evidence adduced at trial (see, People v Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105).
Finally, we find that the defense counsel's performance did not deprive the defendant of the "meaningful representation" of counsel to which he was constitutionally entitled (People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, on remand 87 A.D.2d 843, appeal after remand 96 A.D.2d 212). The defense attorney's failure to request a Mapp hearing did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel (see, People v Morris, 100 A.D.2d 630, affd 64 N.Y.2d 803). Lawrence, J.P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Harwood, JJ., concur.