Opinion
2017–10193 Ind.No. 872/16
01-13-2021
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Reuben CHIZOR, appellant.
Varghese & Associates, P.C., New York, NY (Vinoo P. Varghese of counsel), for appellant. Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill, Joseph N. Ferdenzi, and Danielle S. Fenn of counsel), for respondent.
Varghese & Associates, P.C., New York, NY (Vinoo P. Varghese of counsel), for appellant.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill, Joseph N. Ferdenzi, and Danielle S. Fenn of counsel), for respondent.
LEONARD B. AUSTIN, J.P., BETSY BARROS, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (John B. Latella, J.), rendered July 11, 2017, convicting him of rape in the first degree, rape in the second degree, sexual abuse in the first degree, and endangering the welfare of a child (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contentions that the prosecutor committed misconduct during his questioning of witnesses and on summation is largely unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Sylvestre, 178 A.D.3d 863, 864, 116 N.Y.S.3d 98 ). In any event, while some comments and questions were improper, they did not, either alone or in combination, serve to deprive the defendant of a fair trial. Any prejudice from these comments and questions was, for the most part, ameliorated by sustained objections and the trial court's instructions to the jury (see People v. Barnes, 80 N.Y.2d 867, 868, 587 N.Y.S.2d 597, 600 N.E.2d 228 ), and those improper comments or questions which were not the subject of sustained objections were not so flagrant or pervasive as to have deprived the defendant of a fair trial (see People v. Mapp, 188 A.D.3d 1260, 1260, 132 N.Y.S.3d 806 ; People v. Candelaria, 101 A.D.3d 1139, 1140, 956 N.Y.S.2d 506 ).
Under the circumstances presented, there is no merit to the defendant's contention that he was deprived of his right to present a defense as a result of the Supreme Court's refusal to grant him an adjournment to secure the testimony of an expert witness (see People v. Deverow, 180 A.D.3d 1064, 1066, 118 N.Y.S.3d 677 ; People v. Dikshteyn, 77 A.D.3d 851, 851, 908 N.Y.S.2d 882 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
AUSTIN, J.P., BARROS, CONNOLLY and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.