Opinion
March 27, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the complainant's erroneous description of his height and his failure to mention his facial hair rendered the People's case legally insufficient. We disagree. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that there was sufficient identification evidence to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Contrary to the defendant's contention that certain remarks made by the prosecutor in her summation deprived him of a fair trial, we find that some of the challenged remarks were fair responses to the defense counsel's summation (see, People v Lee, 209 A.D.2d 723; People v. Velasquez, 205 A.D.2d 716), and the prejudicial effect of certain improper remarks was mitigated by the court's immediate curative instructions (see, People v Lamour, 203 A.D.2d 388, 389; People v. Cuevas, 99 A.D.2d 553).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of meaningful representation because his counsel did not call any alibi witnesses on his behalf rests on matters dehors the record and is, therefore, not properly before this Court (see, People v Aversa, 156 A.D.2d 371; People v. Ghee, 153 A.D.2d 954).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Copertino, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.