Opinion
Argued January 23, 2001
February 20, 2001.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrero, J.), rendered April 27, 1998, convicting him of sexual abuse in the first degree and assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
M. Sue Wycoff, New York, N.Y. (Beth S. Lyons of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Seth M. Lieberman of counsel), for respondent.
Before: RITTER, J.P., ALTMAN, FRIEDMANN and SMITH, JJ., concur.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant`s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, 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 (see, CPL 470.15).
The Supreme Court did not err in summarily denying the defendant's first motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant to CPL 30.30 since the motion papers "did not on their face indicate a clear entitlement to a dismissal of the charges" (People v. Lomax, 50 N.Y.2d 351, 357; People v. Lusby, 245 A.D.2d 1110, 1111). The defendant's second motion to dismiss was also properly denied, as it was made without reasonable notice to the People (see, People v. Goberdhan, 249 A.D.2d 324).
The defendant's contentions regarding prosecutorial misconduct are largely either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. While certain of the prosecutor's comments were better left unsaid, the remarks did not constitute reversible error (see, People v. Hunte, 276 A.D.2d 717).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.