Opinion
August 4, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Zelman, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the prosecutor's remarks in summation warrant reversal of his conviction is without merit. The statements made by the prosecutor which the defendant contends denigrated the defense were made in response to comments uttered by the defendant's attorney during his summation, and under the circumstances, were not prejudicial (see, People v Marks, 6 N.Y.2d 67, 78, cert denied 362 U.S. 912). The other remarks which the defendant challenges on appeal were not objected to at trial and therefore have not been preserved for appellate review.
In addition, we find no merit to the defendant's contentions concerning the trial court's ruling on his Sandoval motion (see, People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). Weinstein, J.P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.