Opinion
2002-03109.
Decided May 3, 2004.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Barbaro, J.), rendered March 22, 2002, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (William Kastin of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Linda Breen of counsel), for respondent.
Before: A. GAIL PRUDENTI, P.J., DAVID S. RITTER, DANIEL F. LUCIANO, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial as a result of the prosecutor's summation is unpreserved for appellate review. He either did not object to the remarks at issue, made only general one-word objections, or his objections were sustained without any further request for curative instructions ( see CPL 470.05; People v. Heide, 84 N.Y.2d 943, 944; People v. Tevaha, 84 N.Y.2d 879, 881; People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951, 953). Moreover, the defendant's motion for a mistrial, made after the completion of summations, was untimely and failed to preserve his contentions ( see People v. Morris, 148 A.D.2d 552; People v. Bruen, 136 A.D.2d 648, 649).
In any event, the defendant's contentions are without merit. The prosecutor's summation can be evaluated fairly only in comparison to that of the defense ( see People v. Halm, 81 N.Y.2d 819, 821; People v. McHarris, 297 A.D.2d 824, 825). Analyzed in this context, the prosecutor's summation constituted a fair response to the defendant's closing argument which explicitly put his credibility at issue ( see People v. Allien, 302 A.D.2d 468, 469; People v. Lowery, 281 A.D.2d 491, 492; People v. Sinclair, 231 A.D.2d 926; People v. Russo, 201 A.D.2d 512, 513, affd 85 N.Y.2d 872). In addition, the prosecutor did not assert an unduly prejudicial "safe streets" argument ( People v. Tolliver, 267 A.D.2d 1007, 1008; see People v. Durecot, 224 A.D.2d 264, 265).
The defendant's remaining contentions either are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
PRUDENTI, P.J., RITTER, LUCIANO and CRANE, JJ., concur.