Opinion
April 13, 1987
Appeal from the County Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The evidence against the defendant, which consisted primarily of the testimony of a witness who was an admitted drug dealer and thief, was nevertheless legally sufficient to support the verdict (see, People v Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, 757, cert denied 469 U.S. 932).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to grant his motion for a severance. None of his codefendants' statements implicated the defendant, and therefore there was no violation of his right to confrontation, or his right to a fair trial (see, People v Cruz, 66 N.Y.2d 61, 72, cert granted ___ US ___, 106 S Ct 2888).
We also reject the defendant's contention that the prosecutor's conduct deprived him of a fair trial. The prosecutor's questioning of witnesses was not inherently prejudicial inasmuch as the testimony sought to be elicited could have been admitted to establish motive (see, People v Allweiss, 48 N.Y.2d 40, 47). Furthermore, the prosecutor's summation remarks were a fair response to those of defense counsel (see, People v Marks, 6 N.Y.2d 67, 77-78, cert denied 362 U.S. 912).
The defendant's remaining contentions have been considered and found to be without merit (see, People v Barnes, 50 N.Y.2d 375, 380; People v Pobliner, 32 N.Y.2d 356, 369, rearg denied 33 N.Y.2d 657, cert denied 416 U.S. 905; People v Botta, 100 A.D.2d 311, 314; People v Lanahan, 96 A.D.2d 675, 676; People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 86; People v Hyde, 85 A.D.2d 745, 746). Brown, J.P., Rubin, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.