Majority
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Katz, J.), rendered October 16, 2000, convicting him of attempted burglary in the third degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant’s contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions is not preserved for appellate review, as he failed to raise that issue with specificity at his trial (see People v Polk, 284 AD2d 416 ). 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
The defendant’s challenges to certain comments made by the prosecutor during the trial and summation are unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 , 19; People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943 , 944; People v Mapp, 245 AD2d 307 ). In any event, the challenged comments made during summation were a fair response to the defense counsel’s summation (see People v Ferrer, 245 AD2d 569 , 570; People v Cox, 161 AD2d 724 , 725). Ritter, J.P., Feuerstein, Luciano and Adams, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Polk 284 AD2d 416 p. 691
- People v. Contes 60 NY2d 620 p. 691
- People v. Garafolo 44 AD2d 86 at 88 p. 692
- People v. Gray 86 NY2d 10 at 19 p. 692
- People v. Heide 84 NY2d 943 at 944 p. 692
- People v. Cox 161 AD2d 724 at 725 p. 692