Opinion
June 5, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he was deprived of a fair trial by statements made by the prosecutor during the cross-examination of the defendant and in summation. Since the defendant either failed to object to the statements complained of, or failed to request curative instructions or a mistrial in those instances where an objection was registered and sustained, his contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Comer, 73 N.Y.2d 955; People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951, 953; People v. Conethan, 147 A.D.2d 654; People v Rivera, 142 A.D.2d 615, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 1049; People v Walters, 116 A.D.2d 757, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 891). In any event, the summation comments of which the defendant complains did not exceed the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing argument (see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396) and constituted fair rebuttal to certain assertions made by defense counsel in his summation (see also, People v. Martin, 149 A.D.2d 534; People v. Dupree, 148 A.D.2d 465; People v. Miller, 143 A.D.2d 1055, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 858).
Finally, since the court acted within the statutory limits and no circumstances have been shown warranting a reduction in the sentence, there is no reason to disturb it (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Kooper, J.P., Spatt, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.