| People v Meeks |
| 2008 NY Slip Op 09423 [56 AD3d 800] |
| November 25, 2008 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Radcliffe Meeks, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Sharon Y.Brodt, and Roni C. Piplani of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Aloise, J.),rendered April 12, 2006, convicting him of attempted murder in the first degree, criminalpossession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and menacing in the third degree, upon a juryverdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised itsdiscretion in modifying its Sandoval ruling (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d371, 375 [1974]) to allow the prosecution to cross-examine the defendant about the underlyingfacts of his prior convictions. The defendant opened the door to such questioning by testifying tofacts which conflicted with the previously-precluded evidence (see People v Boyer, 31AD3d 1136 [2006]; People v Onorati, 15 AD3d 216, 217 [2005]; People v Purcell,268 AD2d 491 [2000]).
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in admitting into evidence threephotographs of the victim's injuries is partially unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendantdid not object to the admission of the first and third photographs (see CPL 470.05 [2]). Inany event, the photographs were properly admitted to illustrate the testimony of the victim'streating physician and to aid in establishing the defendant's intent (see People v Stevens,76 NY2d 833, 836 [1990]; People v Walsh, 294 AD2d 519, 520 [2002]; People vPonce, 213 AD2d 725 [1995]).[*2]
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review hischallenges to the prosecutor's summation (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Wright,182 AD2d 793 [1992]). In any event, the challenged remarks either were responsive todefense counsel's summation, constituted fair comment on the evidence, or were harmless error(see People v Gonzalez, 45 AD3d 696, 696-697 [2007]; People v Pierre, 30AD3d 622 [2006]). Skelos, J.P., Lifson, Santucci and Carni, JJ., concur.