Opinion
No. 2005-09447.
July 28, 2009.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ingram, J.), rendered September 1, 2005, convicting him of operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (John Gemmill of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Howard B. Goodman, and Marie John-Drigo of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Mastro, J.P., Santucci, Eng and Lott, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that certain statements made by the prosecutor during summation deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Molinaro, 62 AD3d 724; People v Brown, 60 AD3d 962). In any event, the challenged comments constituted fair comment on the evidence ( see People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109), were responsive to the arguments presented in defense counsel's summation ( see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 400-401), or were harmless ( see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 239).
The defendant's contention that the prosecutor violated the court's Sandoval ruling ( see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371) is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit.