Opinion
February 24, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldberg, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The majority of the alleged errors concerning improper statements made in the prosecutor's summation were not objected to at trial, and thus were not preserved for appellate review as a matter of law (see, People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951, 953). Moreover, those of the prosecutor's alleged improper statements that are preserved for appellate review were a fair response to the defense counsel's attack on the complainant's credibility (see, People v. Stephens, 156 A.D.2d 604; People v. Estrella, 156 A.D.2d 710; People v. Roberts, 156 A.D.2d 731).
Furthermore, the defendant's claim of error with respect to the court's failure to instruct the jury on the definition of sexual contact is not preserved for appellate review, since the defendant raised no objection to the charge as given (see, People v. Balls, 69 N.Y.2d 641).
The sentence imposed was not excessive. Bracken, J.P., O'Brien, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.