Opinion
May 1, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Farlo, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find unpersuasive the defendant's contention that he was denied a fair trial by the prosecutor's remarks on summation. While some of those remarks would have been better left unsaid (see generally, People v Robinson, 123 A.D.2d 796), they were not so prejudicial as to warrant reversal, especially when considered in conjunction with the trial court's curative instructions and the overwhelming proof of the defendant's guilt (see, e.g., People v Oliver, 139 A.D.2d 536; People v Forgione, 134 A.D.2d 514).
We perceive no basis for disturbing the sentence imposed upon the defendant, as the record demonstrates that the court properly considered the relevant factors in rendering its sentencing determination, and the challenged sentence is neither unduly harsh nor excessive (see, e.g., People v Pedraza, 66 N.Y.2d 626; People v Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302; People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Brown, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.