Opinion
May 5, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mastro, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The claim by the defendant that his conviction was not supported by legally sufficient evidence is not preserved for appellate review because it was not advanced with specificity on his motion for a trial order of dismissal (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Johnson, 169 A.D.2d 779, 782; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 250). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The prosecutor's summation remarks did not constitute reversible error. The remarks complained of constituted fair comment on the evidence and on defense counsel's summation regarding that evidence (see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 399; People v. Patrona, 232 A.D.2d 432; People v. Simms, 222 A.D.2d 622; People v. Blair, 226 A.D.2d 470; People v. Clark, 222 A.D.2d 446, 447; People v. Harris, 209 A.D.2d 432; People v. Rosario, 195 A.D.2d 577; People v. Miller, 183 A.D.2d 790, 791; People v Rivera, 158 A.D.2d 723).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Udzinski, supra, 146 A.D.2d, at 247), or without merit.
Miller, J.P., Altman, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.