| People v Dorsette |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 00284 [47 AD3d 728] |
| January 15, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Alfred Dorsette, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Camille O'HaraGillespie, and Jason H. Casell of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Collini, J.),rendered June 28, 2005, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree,upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that various comments made by the prosecutor during summationwere improper and deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review. The defendanteither did not object to the remarks at issue, made only general objections, or his objections weresustained without any further request for curative instructions, and his motion for a mistrial afterthe completion of summations was untimely and failed to preserve his contention (seeCPL 470.05 [2]; People v Romero,7 NY3d 911 [2006]; People vOwens, 43 AD3d 1185 [2007]; People v Patten, 43 AD3d 964 [2007]). In any event, the majorityof the challenged remarks did not exceed the bounds of rhetorical comment permissible inclosing argument and constituted either fair comment upon the evidence presented or fairresponse to the defense summation (seePeople v Owens, 43 AD3d 1185 [2007]; People v Salnave, 41 AD3d 872, 874 [2007]). To the extent that theprosecutor improperly referred to the absence of a defense witness whom he knew washospitalized, such error was harmless (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237[1975]; People v Richardson, 294 AD2d 379, 380 [2002]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and we [*2]decline to reach them in the exercise of our interest of justicejurisdiction. Rivera, J.P., Spolzino, Carni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.