People v Pocesta
2010 NY Slip Op 02178 [71 AD3d 920]
March 16, 2010
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, April 28, 2010


The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Munir Pocesta, Appellant.

[*1]Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Jonathan Garvin of counsel), for appellant.

Daniel M. Donovan, Jr., District Attorney, Staten Island, N.Y. (Morrie I. Kleinbart and AnneGrady of counsel), for respondent.

Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Richmond County(Rooney, J.), both rendered February 6, 2008, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlledsubstance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventhdegree under indictment No. 379/06, upon a jury verdict, and conspiracy in the second degreeunder indictment No. 85/07, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct are unpreserved for appellate review, ashe failed to object to many of the allegedly improper comments, made only general objections asto others, and did not request further curative instructions or move for a mistrial after the courtsustained an objection and issued a curative instruction (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Mitchell, 68 AD3d 784[2009]; People v Clarke, 65 AD3d1055, 1056 [2009]; People vSalnave, 41 AD3d 872, 874 [2007]; People v Wright, 40 AD3d 1021 [2007]). In any event, there is nomerit to the defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial because the prosecutormade improper remarks during his summation. The challenged remarks were either permissiblerhetorical comment (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396 [1981]; People v Macuil, 67 AD3d 1025,1026 [2009]), fair response to the arguments and issues raised by the defense (see People vHalm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]), fair comment on the evidence (see People vAshwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109 [1976]), cured by the trial court's charge to the jury to which thedefendant did not object (see People vEdwards, 63 AD3d 855 [2009]; People v Wilson, 50 AD3d 711, 712 [2008]), or, if improper, werenot so egregious as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Roopchand, 107AD2d 35, 36-37 [1985], affd 65 NY2d 837 [1985]; People v Wright, 62 AD3d 916, 917-918 [2009]). Fisher, J.P.,Angiolillo, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.