| People v Colon |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 06708 [43 AD3d 951] |
| September 11, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v OmarColon, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Joyce Slevin, andJoseph Huttler of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.),rendered May 13, 1998, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree and criminalpossession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved for appellatereview (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19-21 [1995];People v Smith, 303 AD2d 426 [2003]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the lightmost favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we findthat it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v Love, 37 AD3d 618[2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 847 [2007]; People v Guerrier, 291 AD2d 506 [2002]).Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we aresatisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633[2006]).
The defendant's objections to the allegedly prejudicial comments made by the prosecutor inhis summation are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People vSingh, 299 AD2d 498 [2002]), as are the defendant's objections to the prosecutor's questions,on cross-examination, as to whether defense witnesses were "making up" their stories as theytestified, were telling the truth or lying, were telling the truth "this time," knew what the truthwas, and were testifying as to what a gang instructed them to say, and whether the defendantagreed that his [*2]witnesses were lying. In any event, to theextent that any comments were improper, any error was harmless in light of the overwhelmingevidence of the defendant's guilt (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975];People v Love, supra; People vLawrence, 4 AD3d 436 [2004]; People v Singh, supra; People vMcGlone, 222 AD2d 529 [1995]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was provided meaningful representation (seePeople v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event,is without merit. Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Krausman and McCarthy, JJ., concur.