Opinion
March 19, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.).
The record indicates that the court's rulings throughout the trial were appropriate and designed "to keep the proceedings within the reasonable confines of the issues and to encourage clarity rather than obscurity in the development of proof" ( People v. Moulton, 43 N.Y.2d 944, 945). In the instances where the court rebuked defense counsel, whether or not in the presence of the jury, the situation was created by counsel's tactics and did not deprive defendant of a fair trial ( see, People v. Gonzalez, 38 N.Y.2d 208).
Defendant's current claims of error in connection with the prosecutor's summation are unpreserved. Were we to review them in the interest of justice, we would find that the comments now complained of, in context, constituted appropriate response to the defense summation ( People v. Overlee, 236 A.D.2d 133) and rhetorical comment acceptable in closing argument ( People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396). Further, we note that any possible prejudice to defendant in connection with credibility arguments was obviated by the court's prompt and repeated instructions to the jury regarding proper consideration of the credibility issues raised and the People's sole burden of proof, which instructions presumably were understood and followed by the jury ( see, People v. Davis, 58 N.Y.2d 1102).
We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing.
Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenbeger, Nardelli and Andrias, JJ.