Majority
p. 218The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Edward Armstrong, Appellant.
— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cohen, J.), rendered January 4, 1985, convicting him of attempted robbery in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Judgment affirmed.
Despite the minor inconsistencies in the complainant’s testimony, the evidence presented was sufficient to support the verdict since a rational trier of fact could have found the
p. 219
essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Jackson, 114 AD2d 858 ; People v Herriot, 110 AD2d 851 , 852). No objections were made to any part of the prosecutor’s summation, and consequently the claims of prosecutorial misconduct are entirely unpreserved (see, People v Nuccie, 57 NY2d 818 , 819; People v George, 108 AD2d 870 ). In any event, the defendant was not substantially prejudiced by any of the prosecutor’s comments (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396 , 399; People v Roopchand, 107 AD2d 35 , 36, affd 65 NY2d 837 ). His further claim that the complainant’s identification testimony was improperly bolstered by the testimony of the People’s two police witnesses is similarly unpreserved (see, People v Love, 57 NY2d 1023 ). In view of the defendant’s criminal record, the sentence imposed was not excessive and appellate modification is not warranted (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 ). Lazer, J. P., Thompson, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Nuccie 57 NY2d 818 at 819 p. 219
- People v. George 108 AD2d 870 p. 219
- People v. Galloway 54 NY2d 396 at 399 p. 219
- People v. Roopchand 107 AD2d 35 at 36 p. 219
- People v. Love 57 NY2d 1023 p. 219
- People v. Suitte 90 AD2d 80 p. 219