Opinion
January 27, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Zelman, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
Defendant stands convicted of the robbery of a Key Food Supermarket in Queens County on October 2, 1980. When defendant entered the supermarket with two accomplices, he passed by the checkout counters, at which time a cashier recognized him as a former employee of her mother. The cashier waved to defendant and he nodded back. The cashier noticed that defendant was holding a gun. The three men then approached two store managers, Donato and Gustafson, who were standing outside their office, and forced Donato into the office at gunpoint. Donato, still at gunpoint, handed approximately $600 to the intruders.
After the trio fled the scene, the two store managers gave chase in separate cars. At one point defendant stopped running for approximately five to seven seconds and stood about six feet away from Gustafson's car before continuing his flight and disappearing into a nearby apartment building. Later that same day, the supermarket cashier who had recognized defendant gave the investigating police defendant's name and the name of the "projects" where he lived. Twelve days after the robbery, Gustafson identified defendant in a photo array containing six or seven pictures. Donato was unable to identify any of the intruders.
On appeal, defendant contends that certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation deprived him of a fair trial. It is noted that during the prosecutor's summation, defense counsel objected several times to the prosecutor's comments. At least five of counsel's objections were sustained and curative instructions given. The subject remarks by the prosecutor clearly exceeded the bounds of a proper summation. We strongly condemn the patently improper manner of advocacy in which the prosecutor offered his personal views on the evidence (see, People v Lee, 79 A.D.2d 641, 642; People v Butler, 57 A.D.2d 931, 932). However, in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt and the immediate curative instructions given by the court following each of the improper remarks, we conclude that defendant was not deprived of a fair trial (see, People v Hopkins, 58 N.Y.2d 1079; People v Wood, 66 N.Y.2d 374; People v Lowen, 100 A.D.2d 518, 520; People v Gibson, 115 A.D.2d 559).
Defendant's remaining contention has not been preserved for review (see, People v Sharon, 105 A.D.2d 1161). Mollen, P.J., Mangano, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.