Opinion
July 6, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Egitto, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Although the Sandoval hearing was not transcribed, the trial court, after the rendition of the verdict, did indicate, on the record, the terms of its ruling. Defense counsel, moreover, acknowledged that he understood the ruling to be as the court had indicated. The record further discloses that the defendant also acknowledged, in writing, that he was aware of the scope of the court's ruling, and that he "[did] not desire to testify in the present case". Under the circumstances, we find that the defendant's waiver of his right to testify was valid (see, People v. Duffy, 36 N.Y.2d 258, motion to amend remittitur granted 36 N.Y.2d 857, cert denied 423 U.S. 861).
We further find, contrary to the defendant's contentions, that certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial and do not warrant reversal of his conviction (see, People v. Brosnan, 32 N.Y.2d 254; People v. Roopchand, 107 A.D.2d 35, affd 65 N.Y.2d 837).
We find no merit to the remaining contention raised by the defendant. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Brown and Eiber, JJ., concur.