Hyperlawhypertext legal database People v. Eutsay 239 A.D.2d 430

← Cases

People v. Eutsay

239 A.D.2d 430 Court N.Y. App. Div. Decision date 1997-05-12 English

Contents

Majority

p. 430
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kevin Eutsay, Appellant.
[658 NYS2d 896]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mastro, J.), rendered May 22, 1995, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The claim by the defendant that his conviction was hot sup

p. 431
ported by legally sufficient evidence is not preserved for appellate review because it was not advanced with specificity on his motion for a trial order of dismissal (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Johnson, 169 AD2d 779 , 782; People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245 , 250). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 ), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15 [5]).

The prosecutor’s summation remarks did not constitute reversible error. The remarks complained of constituted fair comment on the evidence and on defense counsel’s summation regarding that evidence (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396 , 399; People v Patrona, 232 AD2d 432 ; People v Simms, 222 AD2d 622 ; People v Blair, 226 AD2d 470 ; People v Clark, 222 AD2d 446 , 447; People v Harris, 209 AD2d 432 ; People v Rosario, 195 AD2d 577 ; People v Miller, 183 AD2d 790 , 791; People v Rivera, 158 AD2d 723 ).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Udzinski, supra, 146 AD2d, at 247 ), or without merit. Miller, J. P., Altman, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cases cited