Opinion
November 5, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Fisher, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the police officers' testimony at trial was "obviously tailored", and therefore the People did not prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We disagree. Viewing the evidence in a 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. Furthermore, 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).
The defendant further contends that the prosecutor's references during summation to certain "fabricated" testimony deprived him of a fair trial. This contention is without merit, however, since the prosecutor's remarks "constituted a fair response to defense counsel's summation during which [defense counsel] continually stressed police officers' `embellishment' of the facts" (People v. Waldron, 154 A.D.2d 635). Further, the prosecutor "did not exceed the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing argument" (People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 399).
Finally, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Thompson, J.P., Brown, Kunzeman and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.