| People v Leon |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03013 [61 AD3d 776] |
| April 14, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v EricLeon, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Victor Barall, andDavis Polk & Wardwell [Dominick Barbieri], of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.),rendered March 4, 2005, convicting him of assault in the first degree and robbery in the seconddegree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the prosecution elicited testimony from two police officersthat impermissibly bolstered the identification testimony of civilian eyewitnesses is unpreservedfor appellate review, as the defendant either lodged only general objections or did not object atall when the officers testified (seePeople v Farfam, 34 AD3d 828, 829 [2006]). Moreover, the defendant did not base hislater motion for a mistrial on bolstering, and in fact seemed to disavow a bolstering argument. Inany event, any inferential bolstering which may have occurred was harmless (see People v Moore, 49 AD3d901, 902 [2008]; People v DiFiore,46 AD3d 835 [2007]; People vGerman, 45 AD3d 861, 862 [2007]; People v Shankle, 37 AD3d 742, 744 [2007]).
The defendant's contention that the prosecutor inappropriately referred to uncharged crimesduring summation is without merit (seePeople v Ramirez, 23 AD3d 500, 501 [2005]). The defendant's remaining contentionsthat the prosecution made inappropriate comments during its opening and closing statements areunpreserved for appellate review (see People v German, 45 [*2]AD3d at 861). In any event, several of the remarks challenged onappeal "constituted either fair comment upon the evidence or a fair response to the defensesummation" (id. at 862). While the remainder of the remarks complained of may havecrossed the boundaries of appropriate commentary, any error was harmless (see id.; People v Montero, 44 AD3d796, 797 [2007]; People v Cowan, 111 AD2d 343, 345 [1985]).
The defendant's remaining contentions either are without merit or involve harmless error.Spolzino, J.P., Fisher, Miller and Balkin, JJ., concur.