| People v Blount |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 00510 [47 AD3d 825] |
| January 22, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v MarkBlount, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Morgan J. Dennehy,and Maria Park of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.),rendered December 7, 2004, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (four counts),attempted robbery in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree,upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant's objection to the court's Sandovalruling (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]) was preserved for appellate review(see CPL 470.05 [2]). However, the Sandoval ruling was a provident exercise ofthe court's discretion (see People vAndrews, 30 AD3d 434 [2006]; People v Cruz, 21 AD3d 967 [2005]; People v Nanton, 18 AD3d 671[2005]).
The defendant's contention that certain comments made by the prosecutor during summationwere improper and deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review, as thedefendant did not object to the remarks (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 911,912 [2006]). In any event, the challenged comments either were fair response to the defendant'ssummation (see People v Small, 45AD3d 705 [2007]; People vSalnave, 41 AD3d 872 [2007]; People v McHarris, 297 AD2d 824, 825 [2002]),or, if improper, did not deprive him of a fair trial (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230[1975]).
The defendant accomplished the first degree robberies through separate and distinct actscommitted against four different individuals. While the statutory elements overlap, the [*2]commission of the robberies through separate and distinct actspermitted the imposition of consecutive sentences, even though those robberies were part of asingle extended criminal transaction (see People v Ramirez, 89 NY2d 444 [1996]; seealso People v Laureano, 87 NY2d 640 [1996]; People v Smith, 46 AD3d 583 [2007]; People v Stewartson, 25 AD3d629 [2006]; People v Summers,20 AD3d 546 [2005]). Crane, J.P., Florio, Angiolillo and Carni, JJ., concur.