Majority
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Griffin, J.), rendered September 22, 2011, as amended December 14, 2011, convicting him of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree, course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree, rape in the second degree, and endangering the welfare of a child (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
During the first round of jury selection, the prosecutor improperly asked the prospective jurors, in evaluating the credibility of one of the complaining witnesses, in essence, to commit themselves to rejecting the doctrine of “falsus in uno,” which generally provides that a juror may accept or reject a witness’s testimony in whole or in part (see generally People v Johnson, 225 AD2d 464 [1996]). However, the prosecutor’s comments and questions on this topic did not prejudice the defend
In fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury’s opportunity to view the witnesses, hear testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 , 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 , 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant’s contention that various comments made by the prosecutor during her summation were improper and deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant either did not object to the remarks at issue, made only a general objection, or failed to request further curative relief or make a timely motion for a mistrial on the specific grounds now asserted on appeal when the trial court sustained his objections or provided curative instructions (see People v Barton, 110 AD3d 1089 [2013]; People v O’Keefe, 105 AD3d 1062 , 1064 [2013]; People v Bajana, 82 AD3d 1111 , 1112 [2011]; People v Philbert, 60 AD3d 698 , 699 [2009]).
The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]). The defendant has failed to demonstrate “the absence of strategic or other legitimate explanations” for counsel’s alleged shortcoming (People v Rivera, 71 NY2d 705 , 709 [1988]; see People v Caban, 5 NY3d 143 , 152 [2005]; People v Baugh, 91 AD3d 965 , 966 [2012]).
The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review.
Skelos, J.P., Dillon, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Johnson 225 AD2d 464 p. 671
- People v. Steward 17 NY3d 104 at 113 p. 672
- People v. Jean 75 NY2d 744 at 745 p. 672
- People v. Dashosh 59 AD3d 731 at 731 p. 672
- People v. Cephas 91 AD3d 668 at 669 p. 672
- People v. Porter 226 AD2d 275 at 276-277 p. 672
- People v. Danielson 9 NY3d 342 p. 672
- Middleton v. McNeil 542 US 946 p. 672
- People v. Bleakley 69 NY2d 490 at 495 p. 672
- People v. Romero 7 NY3d 633 p. 672
- People v. Barton 110 AD3d 1089 p. 672
- People v. O'Keefe 105 AD3d 1062 at 1064 p. 672
- People v. Bajana 82 AD3d 1111 at 1112 p. 672
- People v. Benevento 91 NY2d 708 p. 672
- People v. Baldi 54 NY2d 137 p. 672
- People v. Rivera 71 NY2d 705 at 709 p. 672
- People v. Caban 5 NY3d 143 at 152 p. 672
- People v. Baugh 91 AD3d 965 at 966 p. 672