| People v Bossett |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 09040 [45 AD3d 693] |
| November 13, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Darren Bossett, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J.Caferri, and Kristina Sapaskis of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Latella, J.),rendered November 10, 2004, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (six counts), robberyin the second degree (six counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminalpossession of a weapon in the third degree (two counts), and criminal possession of stolenproperty in the fifth degree (four counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appealbrings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Demakos, J.H.O.), of that branch of thedefendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress identification testimony.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Although the prosecutor made certain remarks during his summation which constitutedimproper vouching for the credibility of the People's witnesses and exceeded the bounds ofpermissible comment, any prejudice caused by those remarks was dissipated when the SupremeCourt sustained the defendant's objections and provided forceful and clear curative instructions tothe jury immediately after each improper remark, and then again during its final charge (see People v Wright, 40 AD3d1021 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 884 [2007]; People v Haynes, 39 AD3d 562, 563-564 [2007]; People v Prince, 36 AD3d 833,834 [2007]). In any event, the prosecutor's remarks constituted harmless error (see People v Wright, 40 AD3d1021 [2007]; People v Pinckney,27 AD3d 581, 582 [2006]; People v Trinidad, 22 AD3d 612 [2005]; cf. People v Wood,66 NY2d 374, 380-381 [1985]).[*2]
The defendant's contention, raised in his supplementalpro se brief, that the showup identification was unduly suggestive because of certaincircumstances, is unpreserved for appellate review since he failed to raise this specific argumentat the Wade hearing (see United States v Wade, 388 US 218 [1967]; CPL 470.05[2]; People v Shankle, 37 AD3d742, 743 [2007]; People v Saunders, 306 AD2d 502, 502-503 [2003]; People vVelez, 222 AD2d 625, 626 [1995]), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interestof justice jurisdiction.
Any alleged error regarding the prosecutor's going beyond the proper scope of redirectexamination in his questioning of one of the complainants regarding the defendant's nodding athim during the robbery was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant'sguilt and the absence of a significant probability that the jury would have acquitted the defendanthad it not been for this error (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 242 [1975]; People v Jackson, 25 AD3d 808,809 [2006]; People v James, 177 AD2d 595, 596 [1991]; People v Egan, 103AD2d 940, 941 [1984]).
The defendant's remaining contentions raised in his supplemental pro se brief are withoutmerit. Crane, J.P., Goldstein, Skelos and Carni, JJ., concur.