Opinion
October 30, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Groh, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's present contention, the trial court did not err in denying his request for a justification charge. Consideration of the trial record in the light most favorable to the defendant (see, People v Padgett, 60 N.Y.2d 142) demonstrates that there was no reasonable view of the evidence which would support that defense (see, e.g., People v Reynoso, 73 N.Y.2d 816; People v Watts, 57 N.Y.2d 299).
The defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that alleged prosecutorial misconduct deprived him of a fair trial (see, CPL 470.05; People v Nuccie, 57 N.Y.2d 818). In any event, the prosecutor's remarks in summation constituted a fair response to the defense counsel's closing statement (see, e.g., People v Crawford, 130 A.D.2d 678), and "did not exceed the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing argument" (People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 399).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Spatt, J.P., Sullivan, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.