Opinion
July 5, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's request for an adjournment during the trial. The defendant failed to establish that he exercised sufficient diligence in attempting to produce his witness, or that he would be able to produce the witness if his request was granted (see, People v. Foy, 32 N.Y.2d 473, 477; People v Moutinho, 146 A.D.2d 650).
The defendant's contention that the prosecution's summation comments regarding the codefendant's out-of-court statement constituted reversible error is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, the defendant testified that the detectives told him that the codefendant had implicated the defendant in the crime. The prosecution's comments were either fair comment on the evidence at trial or fair response to defense counsel's summation (see, People v. Arce, 42 N.Y.2d 179, 190-191; People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105). Rosenblatt, J.P., Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.