| People v Dick |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 01558 [48 AD3d 697] |
| February 19, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Rudolph Dick, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Keith Dolan, andJoanna Cohn Weiss of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.),rendered June 21, 2005, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, assault in the firstdegree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentencing.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the prosecutor's summation deprived him of a fair trial isunpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant failed to object or raised only generalobjections to the prosecutor's summation remarks (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People vTonge, 93 NY2d 838 [1999];People v Almonte, 23 AD3d 392, 394 [2005]; People v Martinez, 17 AD3d 484, 485 [2005]). In any event, mostof the challenged remarks were fair comment on the evidence, permissible rhetorical comment,or responsive to the defense counsel's summation (see People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105,109-110 [1976]; People v Carter, 36AD3d 624 [2007]; People v Martinez, 17 AD3d at 485; People v Rhodes, 11 AD3d 487,488 [2004]; People v Valdes, 291 AD2d 513, 514 [2002]). "To the extent that theprosecutor may have exceeded the bounds of permissible rhetorical comment, any error washarmless" (People v Carter, 36AD3d 624, 624 [2007]; see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Carni, JJ., concur.