Majority
Appeal by the defend
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant’s contention that certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review, since he objected on grounds other than those currently raised, failed to request curative instructions, and failed to make a timely motion for a mistrial on the specific grounds he now asserts on appeal (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Nuccie, 57 NY2d 818 , 819 [1982]; People v Thompson, 125 AD3d 899 [2015]; People v Philips, 120 AD3d 1266 , 1268 [2014]; People v Martin, 116 AD3d 981 [2014]; People v Henderson, 275 AD2d 948 , 948 [2000]). In any event, the prosecutor’s remarks constituted fair comment in response to the defense counsel’s portrayal in his summation of the quality and sufficiency of the evidence (see People v Lapan, 289 AD2d 698 [2001]; People v Gozdalski, 239 AD2d 896 , 897 [1997]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Sgroi and Miller, JJ.,
concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Nuccie 57 NY2d 818 at 819 p. 736
- People v. Philips 120 AD3d 1266 at 1268 p. 736
- People v. Martin 116 AD3d 981 p. 736
- People v. Lapan 289 AD2d 698 p. 736
- People v. Gozdalski 239 AD2d 896 at 897 p. 736
- People v. Suitte 90 AD2d 80 p. 736