Opinion
October 30, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Fisher, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find unpersuasive the defendant's contention that he was denied a fair trial due to five remarks made by the prosecutor in his protracted closing summation. While several objectionable comments may have exceeded the limits of propriety (see, People v De Long, 134 A.D.2d 199), the cumulative effect of these comments was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt (see, People v Morgan, 66 N.Y.2d 255; People v Roopchand, 107 A.D.2d 35, affd 65 N.Y.2d 837) and the court's prompt curative instructions, which were sufficient to dispel whatever prejudicial effect those remarks may have had (People v Gilmore, 135 A.D.2d 828; People v Singleton, 109 A.D.2d 763). Thompson, J.P., Brown, Kunzeman and Rubin, JJ., concur.