Opinion
July 29, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the prosecutor did not, in his summation comments, usurp the court's function of instructing the jury on the law (see, People v Johnstone, 131 A.D.2d 782, 783; People v Cheek, 121 A.D.2d 649; People v Robinson, 83 A.D.2d 887; cf., People v Sepulveda, 105 A.D.2d 854, 857). Furthermore, the sentence imposed was not excessive under the circumstances presented (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Kooper, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and O'Brien, JJ., concur.