| People v Coleman |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 03918 [62 AD3d 810] |
| May 12, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Towaun Coleman, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Sholom J. Twersky,and Justin Goodyear of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (McKay, J.),rendered March 7, 2007, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (three counts), burglary inthe first degree (two counts), and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (twocounts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial,after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppressidentification testimony and physical evidence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court did not err in denying thosebranches of his omnibus motion which were to suppress certain identification testimony andphysical evidence, as the evidence at the suppression hearing permitted the Supreme Court toinfer that the two police officers who stopped and detained the defendant just prior to his arresthad reasonable suspicion to do so based on the information that they had received minutes earlierfrom a radio transmission made by another officer (see People v Gonzalez, 91 NY2d909, 910 [1998]; People v Sabeno, 223 AD2d 512, 513 [1996]; Matter of Robert S.,159 AD2d 358 [1990]).
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that certain commentsmade by the prosecutor during summation deprived him of a fair trial, since the defendant failedto object or raised only a general objection to those comments (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Williams, 50 AD3d 710,711 [2008]). In any event, the challenged comments, for the most part, were "fair comment [*2]on the evidence, permissible rhetorical comment, or responsive tothe defense counsel's summation" (People v Gillespie, 36 AD3d 626, 627 [2007]), and any improperstatements "were not so flagrant or pervasive as to deny the defendant a fair trial" (People v Almonte, 23 AD3d 392,394 [2005]; see People v Svanberg, 293 AD2d 555 [2002]). Dillon, J.P., Angiolillo,Dickerson and Eng, JJ., concur.