| People v Molinaro |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03751 [62 AD3d 724] |
| May 5, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Steven Molinaro, Appellant. |
—[*1] Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York, N.Y. (Vincent Rivellese of counsel),for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Marrus,J.), rendered October 15, 2007, convicting him of criminal contempt in the second degree, upona jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contentions that the prosecutor's summation remarks and references to thedefendant's grandfather, the Staten Island borough president, constituted reversible error areunpreserved for appellate review since the defense made only a general objection, failed torequest curative instructions, and did not timely move for a mistrial on these grounds(see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Balls, 69 NY2d 641, 642 [1986]; People v Salnave, 41 AD3d 872,874 [2007]; People v Wright, 5AD3d 873, 875 [2004]). In any event, most of the remarks in the prosecutor's summationthat are challenged by the defendant on appeal constituted a fair response to defense counsel'ssummation or fair comment on the evidence, or were within the bounds of permissible rhetoricalcomment (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819 [1993]; People v Turner, 214 AD2d594 [1995]; People v Peterson, 186 AD2d 231, 232 [1992], affd 81 NY2d 824[1993]). While some of the remarks were improper, they were "not so flagrant or pervasive as todeny the defendant a fair trial" (Peoplev Almonte, 23 AD3d 392, 394 [2005]; see People v Morales, 168 AD2d 85, 90[1991]), and thus reversal is [*2]not warranted (see People vGalloway, 54 NY2d 396 [1981]; People v Almonte, 23 AD3d at 394; People vRoopchand, 107 AD2d 35, 36 [1985]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable tothe prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), it was legally sufficient toestablish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon our independentreview pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against theweight of the evidence (see People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Skelos, J.P., Florio, Leventhal and Hall, JJ., concur.