Opinion
October 17, 1988
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Thorp, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
By failing to specifically present to the hearing court the issue of whether the confession should be suppressed on the ground that it was coerced from him after he had invoked his right to remain silent, the defendant has failed to preserve the issue for appellate review (see, People v Smith, 55 N.Y.2d 888; People v Tutt, 38 N.Y.2d 1011; People v Williams, 118 A.D.2d 610, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 1058). In any event, the record supports the hearing court's conclusion that the defendant effectively waived his Miranda rights and voluntarily confessed to the crime (see, Michigan v Mosly, 423 U.S. 96; People v Grant, 45 N.Y.2d 366).
We also disagree with the defendant's contention that he was denied a fair trial because of alleged improper and prejudicial comments made by the prosecutor during summation. To the extent they were preserved for appellate review, the challenged remarks constituted permissible responses to defense counsel's summation, in which he repeatedly attacked the credibility of the People's witnesses (see, People v Arce, 42 N.Y.2d 179; People v Morgan, 136 A.D.2d 749), and, in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt, to the extent that any of the comments were inappropriate, they do not warrant reversal of his conviction (see, People v Hopkins, 58 N.Y.2d 1079; People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396).
We have examined the remaining contentions advanced by the defendant and have found them to be lacking in merit. Mangano, J.P., Weinstein, Kooper and Balletta, JJ., concur.