Opinion
May 8, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's present contention that the admission of certain testimony was violative of the parent-child privilege is unpreserved for our review inasmuch as it was not cited as a ground for objection at trial (see, People v Harrell, 59 N.Y.2d 620). In any event, we find no merit to the defendant's argument. The circumstances which may give rise to a parent-child privilege, i.e., "when a minor, under arrest for a serious crime, seeks the guidance and advice of a parent in the unfriendly environs of a police precinct" (People v Harrell, 87 A.D.2d 21, 26, affd 59 N.Y.2d 620, supra), were not present here (People v Edwards, 135 A.D.2d 556; see also, People v Tesh, 124 A.D.2d 843). Nor did defense counsel's failure to raise this issue at trial render his assistance ineffective (see, e.g., People v Flores, 84 N.Y.2d 184; People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).
The remarks by the prosecution in summation were fair comment on the evidence or constituted legitimate responses to the defense counsel's summation (see, People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396; see also, People v Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105).
Under the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Joy, J.P., Friedmann, Krausman and Florio, JJ., concur.