Opinion
2011–11756 Ind. No. 3293/10
01-17-2018
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Abraham Angel VASQUEZ, also known as Juan Velazquez, appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (A. Alexander Donn of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Amy Appelbaum, and Arieh Schulman of counsel), for respondent.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (A. Alexander Donn of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Amy Appelbaum, and Arieh Schulman of counsel), for respondent.
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., LEONARD B. AUSTIN, SANDRA L. SGROI, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERAppeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Neil Jon Firetog, J.), rendered December 1, 2011, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by the admission of certain evidence regarding whether he was a member of a gang is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Green, 110 A.D.3d 825, 826, 973 N.Y.S.2d 679 ). In any event, any error in admitting such evidence was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, and no significant probability that any error contributed to his convictions (see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 240–241, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787 ).
The defendant's contention that he was unfairly prejudiced by several remarks made by the prosecutor during summation is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ). In any event, the challenged remarks were proper responses to arguments made by defense counsel on summation or fair comment on the evidence (see People v. Halm, 81 N.Y.2d 819, 821, 595 N.Y.S.2d 380, 611 N.E.2d 281 ; People v. Adamson, 131 A.D.3d 701, 703, 15 N.Y.S.3d 452 ).
Further, defense counsel's failure to move to redact the portions of the defendant's videotaped interview relating to the defendant's tattoos and to object to the prosecutor's remarks made during summation did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel (see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713–714, 674 N.Y.S.2d 629, 697 N.E.2d 584 ; People v. Ramirez, 146 A.D.3d 987, 988, 45 N.Y.S.3d 568 ; People v. Manigat, 136 A.D.3d 614, 616, 24 N.Y.S.3d 397 ; People v. Ervin, 118 A.D.3d 910, 912, 987 N.Y.S.2d 454 ).Finally, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
BALKIN, J.P., AUSTIN, SGROI and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.