| People v Linley |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 01672 [60 AD3d 696] |
| March 3, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| 76—The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Claude Linley, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Victor Barall, andTheodore K. Cheng of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman,J.), rendered June 14, 2007, convicting him of attempted grand larceny in the third degree andcriminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury [*2]verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's assertion that the trial court erred in denying his Batson challenge(see Batson v Kentucky, 476 US 79 [1986]) is unpreserved for appellate review and, inany event, is without merit. The prosecutor's race-neutral explanations for using a peremptorychallenge against a prospective black juror are supported by the record, and the defendant "failedto carry his ultimate burden of demonstrating discrimination by showing that these reasons werepretextual" (People v Thompson,45 AD3d 876, 877 [2007]).
Additionally, the defendant's contention that the prosecutor made inappropriate remarksduring summation is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant failed to object duringthe trial (see People v Robbins, 48AD3d 711 [2008]). In any event, the comments complained of fall within "the broad boundsof rhetorical comment permissible in closing arguments" (People v Stewart, 51 AD3d 826, 827 [2008]).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see People vTucker, 55 NY2d 1, 9 [1981]; People v Giuca, 58 AD3d 750 [2009]) and, in any event, is withoutmerit (see People v Canty, 60 NY2d 830, 831-832 [1983]). Fisher, J.P., Covello,Angiolillo and Leventhal, JJ., concur.