| People v Jones |
| 2007 NY Slip Op 10177 [46 AD3d 840] |
| December 18, 2007 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Donald Jones, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Diane R. Eisner ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.),rendered December 8, 2004, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict,and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claims that the prosecutor conducted improper cross-examinations and animproper summation are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). In thefew instances when the defendant did object, he either made only general objections or failed torequest a curative instruction when an objection was sustained (see People v Aponte, 28 AD3d672 [2006]; People vHaripersaud, 24 AD3d 468, 469 [2005]; People v Portalatin, 18 AD3d 673, 674 [2005]). In any event, to theextent that any of the questioning or comments made during summation were improper, any errorwas harmless (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237 [1975]; People v Colon, 43 AD3d 951[2007]; People v Love, 37 AD3d618, 619 [2007]; People vFrazier, 35 AD3d 759, 759-760 [2006]).
The defendant's challenge in his supplemental pro se brief to the legal sufficiency of theevidence is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray,86 NY2d 10, 19-21 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to theprosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legallysufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon theexercise of our factual review power (see CPL [*2]470.15[5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633[2006]).
The defendant's remaining contentions, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, areunpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, are withoutmerit. Miller, J.P., Ritter, Skelos and Covello, JJ., concur.