People v Torres
2010 NY Slip Op 02595 [71 AD3d 1063]
March 23, 2010
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, April 28, 2010


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

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

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Thomas M. Rossof counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.),rendered April 29, 2008, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the testimony of two police officers improperly bolstered theidentification testimony of one of the witnesses is unpreserved for appellate review, since hefailed to object to the allegedly improper testimony (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People vTavarez, 55 AD3d 932 [2008]; People v South, 47 AD3d 734, 735 [2008];People v Jackson, 25 AD3d 808 [2006]; People v Wilson, 295 AD2d 545[2002]). In any event, the admission of the testimony into evidence does not require reversal.

The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain remarks made bythe prosecutor during summation is also unpreserved for appellate review, as he failed to objectto any of the complained-of remarks at trial (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People vRomero, 7 NY3d 911 [2006]; People v Douglas, 64 AD3d 726 [2009]; People vJohnson, 64 AD3d 616 [2009]). In any event, most of the challenged remarks were withinthe broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing arguments, fair comment on theevidence, or responsive to arguments and theories presented in the defense summation (seePeople v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399[1981]; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]; People v Turner, 214AD2d 594 [1995]). Any error resulting from the remaining challenged remarks was harmless(see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]; People v Ortiz, 46AD3d 580, 581 [2007]; People v Adamo, 309 AD2d 808, 809 [2003]). Rivera, J.P.,Florio, Angiolillo and Belen, 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.