Opinion
May 2, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence Tonetti, J.).
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People ( People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), it was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of the crimes of which he was convicted. It was not necessary for the People to introduce the proceeds of the robbery or the weapon used to commit it in order to prove defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ( People v Washington, 191 A.D.2d 278). Moreover, the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15). Although defendant challenges the credibility of the complainant, such credibility issues were for the jury to resolve ( People v Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84, 94), and we find no basis to disturb its determination.
Defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by the hostile atmosphere created by the court is unpreserved as a matter of law (CPL 470.05; People v. Charleston, 56 N.Y.2d 886). In any event, rather than showing favoritism for the prosecution, the court, in questioning the foreign born complainant, was merely attempting to clarify his responses ( see, People v. De Jesus, 42 N.Y.2d 519, 523). Nor did the court err in admonishing defense counsel when he referred to extraneous and prejudicial matters ( see, People v. Marcelin, 23 A.D.2d 368). Although some of the court's admonitions to counsel would better have been made outside the jury's presence, defendant was not thereby deprived of a fair trial.
The summation of the prosecutor constituted fair comment on the evidence and a fair response to the summation of defense counsel ( People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396).
We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Rubin, Ross and Nardelli, JJ.