Opinion
October 6, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Murray Mogel, J.).
The evidence revealed that on February 25, 1990, at approximately 5:00 A.M., while the complainant was walking on 77th Street between Park and Lexington Avenues, in Manhattan, after having spent the evening with a group of friends at a nightclub and a restaurant, she was approached and then grabbed around the neck by the defendant, who wrestled her purse away from her and then fled north on Lexington Avenue, where he was apprehended shortly thereafter by the police.
The defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct in summation, including allegedly vouching for the complainant's veracity, denigrating the defense and suggesting that the defendant had a propensity to steal, are unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law by appropriate objection (CPL 470.05). Were we to review these claims in the interest of justice, we would find that the prosecutor's remarks in summation did not exceed the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing arguments and were a fair response to defense counsel's summation comments which attacked the credibility of the People's witnesses and argued that the defendant had not robbed the complainant (see, People v Marks, 6 N.Y.2d 67, 77-78).
We find also that the court, at the Sandoval hearing, properly weighed the probative value of the defendant's prior bad acts against the potential for undue prejudice in permitting the People to cross-examine the defendant concerning his suspension as a Transit Authority motorman for cocaine use and his having lied to a criminal justice agency when questioned about his current employment status at the time of his arrest, and that the court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that those acts were probative of his willingness to place his own self-interest above those of society (People v Greer, 42 N.Y.2d 170, 176, citing People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 377).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Kupferman and Rubin, JJ.