| People v Adam |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 04100 [50 AD3d 1153] |
| April 29, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Terence R. Adam, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Anthea H. Bruffee,and Steven A. Mann of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.),rendered August 5, 2005, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and criminal trespassin the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain remarks made by theprosecutor during summation is unpreserved for appellate review since defense counsel failed toobject or raised only a general objection to the remarks (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Carrieri, 49 AD3d 660[2008]; People v Robbins, 48 AD3d711 [2008]). In any event, the challenged remarks either were a fair response to thedefendant's summation (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396 [1981]; People v Ferraro, 49 AD3d 550[2008]), or constituted harmless error (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]; People v Wilson, 49 AD3d 673[2008]). Furthermore, defense counsel's failure to object to the challenged remarks did notconstitute ineffective assistance of counsel (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708[1998]; People v Robbins, 48 AD3d711 [2008]; People v Gonzalez,44 AD3d 790 [2007]).
The defendant's argument that the People failed to establish, by legally sufficient evidence,his guilt of criminal trespass in the second degree because there was no evidence that he enteredthe subject dwelling is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10,19 [1995]; People v Brown, 29AD3d 917 [2006]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable [*2]to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620[1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt of criminal trespassin the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Contrary to the defendant's contention, theevidence established that he unlawfully entered the residence by accessing an enclosed areaattached to the house (see People v Rivera, 301 AD2d 787 [2003]; People v Adams,212 AD2d 621 [1995]; People v Figueroa, 204 AD2d 972 [1994]; People vMcCrea, 194 AD2d 742 [1993]). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power(see CPL 470.15 [5]), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weightof the evidence (see People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Mastro, J.P., Ritter, Carni and Eng, JJ., concur.