Opinion
2014–05987 Ind. 2155/12
03-28-2018
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Andrew BARRETT, appellant.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Denise A. Corsí of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Joseph N. Ferdenzi, and Tina Grillo of counsel), for respondent.
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Denise A. Corsí of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Joseph N. Ferdenzi, and Tina Grillo of counsel), for respondent.
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., SHERI S. ROMAN, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
DECISION & ORDERAppeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Richard L. Buchter, J.), rendered June 3, 2014, convicting him of criminal sexual act in the first degree (two counts), rape in the first degree, robbery in the third degree, and attempted rape in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contentions that the prosecutor's opening and summation remarks constituted reversible error are unpreserved for appellate review because he failed to object to the remarks, made only general objections, failed to request curative instructions, and did not timely move for a mistrial on the grounds now claimed (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 911, 912, 828 N.Y.S.2d 274, 861 N.E.2d 89 ; People v. Balls, 69 N.Y.2d 641, 642, 511 N.Y.S.2d 586, 503 N.E.2d 1017 ; People v. Salnave, 41 A.D.3d 872, 874, 838 N.Y.S.2d 657 ). In any event, the remarks alleged to be prejudicial were all either fair comment on the evidence (see People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 109, 383 N.Y.S.2d 204, 347 N.E.2d 564 ), a fair response to arguments and theories presented in the defense summation (see People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 399, 446 N.Y.S.2d 9, 430 N.E.2d 885 ), or constituted harmless error (see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241–242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787 ; People v. Hill, 286 A.D.2d 777, 778, 730 N.Y.S.2d 723 ).
The defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim, which is based solely upon his counsel's failure to preserve his contentions regarding the prosecutor's remarks, is also without merit (see People v. Ramirez, 146 A.D.3d 987, 988, 45 N.Y.S.3d 568 ; People v. Singh, 138 A.D.3d 767, 27 N.Y.S.3d 882 ).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675 ).
RIVERA, J.P., ROMAN, DUFFY and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.