Opinion
2002-01260.
Decided March 8, 2004.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Latella, J.), rendered January 31, 2002, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), assault in the first degree, and assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Denise A. Corsi of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Jeanette Lifschitz, and Michael A. Wiesenfeld of counsel), for respondent.
Before: NANCY E. SMITH, J.P., GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, REINALDO E. RIVERA, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claim that certain comments made by the prosecutor during summation and the cumulative effect of prosecutorial misconduct constituted reversible error is largely unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant made only general objections, did not request curative instructions when the objections were sustained, and did not timely move for a mistrial ( see CPL 470.05; People v. Smith, 298 A.D.2d 607; People v. Bruen, 136 A.D.2d 648, 649). In any event, most of the challenged remarks were proper because they constituted either fair comment upon the evidence or a fair response to the defense summation ( see People v. Ivory, 307 A.D.2d 1000, 1001, lv denied 100 N.Y.2d 643; People v. Clark, 132 A.D.2d 704, 705; People v. Colon, 122 A.D.2d 151). With respect to the remaining challenged remarks, the trial court's immediate admonitions served to ameliorate any prejudicial effect that may have resulted ( see People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 399; People v. Armonte, 287 A.D.2d 645, 646). Moreover, the challenged remarks, both individually and cumulatively, constituted harmless error in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt ( see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241; People v. Ivory, supra; People v. Garrett, 219 A.D.2d 670).
SMITH, J.P., GOLDSTEIN, MASTRO and RIVERA, JJ., concur.