| People v Cummins |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 00702 [59 AD3d 458] |
| February 3, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v GlenCummins, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Morgan J.Dennehy of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.),rendered April 28, 2006, convicting him of murder in the second degree, burglary in the firstdegree, and intimidating a witness in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposingsentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that he was denied a fair trial by certain remarks made by theprosecutor during summation is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]).The defendant either failed to raise any objection to the challenged remarks, voiced only generalobjections, or failed to seek further relief after objections were sustained and curativeinstructions given (see People vCrawford, 54 AD3d 961, 962 [2008]; People v Boyce, 54 AD3d 1052 [2008]; People v Kanios, 53 AD3d 555[2008]; People v Brown, 48 AD3d590 [2008]). In any event, the challenged remarks were either fair response to the defensesummation or fair comment on the evidence (see People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105 [1976];People v Crawford, 54 AD3d961, 962 [2008]; People vBoyce, 54 AD3d 1052 [2008]; People v Friel, 53 AD3d 667 [2008]; People v Brown, 48 AD3d 590[2008]).
Viewing the totality of the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of the case, we find thatthe defendant's trial counsel provided meaningful representation (see People vBenevento, 91 NY2d 708, [*2]712-713 [1998]; People vBaldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147-148 [1981]; People v Robinson, 55 AD3d 636 [2008]; People v Biscombe, 54 AD3d1051 [2008]).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see People vUdzinski, 146 AD2d 245 [1989]). Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Eng and Belen, JJ., concur.