Opinion
November 23, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Demakos, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to a remark made by the prosecutor during summation is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245) since after his objection was sustained, he failed to seek further ameliorative action ( see, People v. Heide, 84 N.Y.2d 943). In any event, the prosecutor's remark did not exceed the bounds of permissible rhetoric afforded counsel during argument ( see, People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 109; People v. Guerrero, 250 A.D.2d 703). Moreover, the remark complained of was a fair response to the defense counsel's argument that the witness received a favorable deal in exchange for his testimony and so had an incentive to lie ( see, People v. Persaud, 237 A.D.2d 538).
Further, the court correctly conveyed the burden of proof requirements regarding accomplice testimony to the jury, and the jury is presumed to have followed the instructions as given ( see, People v. Ferrer, 245 A.D.2d 569).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
O'Brien, J. P., Florio, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.