| People v Macuil |
| 2009 NY Slip Op 08838 [67 AD3d 1025] |
| November 24, 2009 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Esteban Macuil, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Anthea Bruffee, andSarah Blackman of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chambers,J.), rendered January 12, 2006, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon a juryverdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that he was deprived ofa fair trial because the trial court permitted the People's forensic pathology expert to opine onmatters outside of her area of expertise and give an opinion that lacked an adequate factual basis(see People v Arroyo, 59 AD3d634 [2009]). In any event, this contention is without merit, as the testimony was properlyadmitted (see People v Kinitsky, 166 AD2d 456, 457 [1990]).
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in curtailing defense counsel'scross-examination of the People's firearms analysis expert is also unpreserved for appellatereview (see People v Charleston, 56 NY2d 886 [1982]; People v Marino, 21 AD3d 430[2005]). In any event, the nature and extent of cross-examination is subject to the sounddiscretion of the trial judge and, here, the cross-examination was not improperly curtailed orrestricted (see People v Schwartzman, 24 NY2d 241 [1969]; People v Martin, 33 AD3d 1024[2006]).
Although the defendant contends that remarks made by the prosecutor during summationwere unfairly prejudicial and deprived him of a fair trial, he failed to make sufficiently specificobjections to the remarks, failed to request curative instructions, and did not move for a mistrial.Therefore, the objections are not preserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2];People v Tonge, 93 NY2d 838, 840 [1999]). In any event, the challenged remarks were"fair comment on the evidence, permissible rhetorical comment, or responsive to the defensecounsel's summation" and were not improper (People v Gillespie, 36 AD3d 626, 627 [2007]; see People v Swinton, 21 AD3d1039 [2005]).
The defendant received the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Benevento,91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People vRobbins, 48 AD3d 711 [2008]).[*2]
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see Peoplev Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 86 [1982]). Mastro, J.P., Belen, Hall and Austin, JJ., concur.