| People v Scrimo |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 08247 [67 AD3d 825] |
| November 10, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v PaulScrimo, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Douglas Noll and Ilisa T. Fleischer ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Brown, J.),rendered June 18, 2002, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, after a hearing (Ort, J.), of thosebranches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physical evidence and hisstatements to law enforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the County Court properly determined that the policehad probable cause to arrest him (see People v Thomas, 231 AD2d 749, 750 [1996];People v Crawford, 221 AD2d 462 [1995]). Accordingly, the County Court properlydenied those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were to suppress physicalevidence and his statements to law enforcement officials.
The defendant's contention that certain statements made by the prosecutor during summationdeprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2];People v Dien, 77 NY2d 885, 885-886 [1991]; People v Nuccie, 57 NY2d 818,819 [1982]; People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951, 953 [1981]). In any event, the challengedcomments constituted fair comment on the evidence (see People v [*2]Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109 [1976]), were responsive to thearguments presented in defense counsel's summation (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d396, 400-401 [1981]), or constituted harmless error (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d230, 239 [1975]).
Upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict ofguilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 643-644 [2006]).
Viewing the totality of the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of the case, we find thatthe defendant's trial counsel provided meaningful representation (see People vBenevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712-713 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147-148[1981]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Prudenti, P.J., Skelos, Covello andAustin, JJ., concur.