Opinion
April 18, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The court properly sustained the prosecutor's objections to the defense counsel's remarks during summation. Inflammatory comments and expressions of personal opinion concerning the veracity of witnesses are improper in the summation of either the prosecutor or the defense counsel (People v. Mitchell, 114 A.D.2d 978, 979, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 654). The defense counsel's repeated characterization of the People's witnesses as liars was improper. He also persistently misstated the facts that were before the jury. Counsel may not call upon the jury to draw conclusions which are not fairly inferable from the evidence (People v Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 110).
Nor was the defendant prejudiced by the prosecutor's remarks during summation. While some of the comments may have been impassioned, we find them to be within the "broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing argument" (People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 399).
In addition, a general credibility instruction, which the court gave here, rather than a special charge on prior inconsistent statements, was sufficient (see, People v. Dellarocco, 115 A.D.2d 904, lv denied, 67 N.Y.2d 941), and we find that the credibility charge was proper. The jury was adequately informed of the correct rules to apply in arriving at its verdict (see, People v Canty, 60 N.Y.2d 830, 832).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Weinstein, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.