| People v Sample |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 09123 [45 AD3d 450] |
| November 20, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, First Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Frederick Sample, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York (Marc Krupnick of counsel), forrespondent.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered May 6,2005, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the third degree, and sentencedhim, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2¾ to 5½ years, with restitution,including a mandatory surcharge, in the total amount of $45,150, unanimously affirmed.
The portion of the prosecutor's summation to which defendant objected as "speculation"constituted a fair inference that could be drawn from the record (see e.g. People vTaylor, 249 AD2d 33 [1998]). Defendant's remaining claims of prosecutorial misconductduring cross-examination and summation are unpreserved and we decline to review them in theinterest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find no basis for reversal (seePeople v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133 [1997], lv denied 91 NY2d 976 [1998]; Peoplev D'Alessandro, 184 AD2d 114, 118-119 [1992], lv denied 81 NY2d 884 [1993]).
The court's limited questioning of defendant during his testimony did not deprive him of afair trial. Although some of the inquiries could be viewed as unnecessary or irrelevant, the court'squestions did not assist the People in proving their case or benefit them in any fashion, nor werethe questions particularly hostile toward defendant's case (see People v Melendez, 31 AD3d 186, 197 [2006], lv denied7 NY3d 927 [2006]). We conclude that the jury was not "prevented from arriving at animpartial judgment on the merits" (People v Moulton, 43 NY2d 944, 946 [1978]).
The record does not establish that defendant's sentence was based on any improper criteria,and we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Andrias, J.P., Nardelli,Gonzalez, Sweeny and Malone, JJ.