People v Stiff
2009 NY Slip Op 02641 [60 AD3d 1094]
March 31, 2009
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, May 6, 2009


The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Douglas Stiff, Appellant.

[*1]Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (John Gemmill of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Ruth E. Ross, andJudith Aarons of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lott, J.),rendered July 7, 2006, convicting him of reckless endangerment in the first degree (threecounts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that various remarks made by the prosecutor during his openingstatement and on summation were improper, and denied him a fair trial. This contention,however, is unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant either failed to object or raisedonly general objections to the remarks, did not request curative instructions when his objectionswere sustained, and failed to timely move for a mistrial (see CPL 470.05 [2]; Peoplev Almonte, 23 AD3d 392, 394 [2005]). In any event, the challenged remarks were eitherpermissible rhetorical comment (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396 [1981]), a fairresponse to the arguments and issues raised by the defense (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d819 [1993]; People v McHarris, 297 AD2d 824 [2002]), fair comment on the evidence(see People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105 [1976]), or harmless error (see People vCrimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]; People v Maldonado, 55 AD3d 626 [2008], lvdenied 11 NY3d 927 [2009]; People v Brown, 272 AD2d 338 [2000]).

Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, defense counsel's failure to object to the[*2]challenged remarks did not constitute ineffective assistanceof counsel (see People v Tonge, 93 NY2d 838 [1999]; People v Benevento, 91NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Robbins, 48 AD3d 711 [2008]).

The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event,is without merit. Skelos, J.P., Fisher, Florio and Leventhal, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.