| People v Torres |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 02975 [72 AD3d 709] |
| April 6, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Hector Torres, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, JeanetteLifschitz, and Rebecca Kramer of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.),rendered November 10, 2005, convicting him of rape in the first degree, sexual abuse in the firstdegree, burglary in the first degree, and endangering the welfare of a child in the first degree,upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain remarks made bythe prosecutor during summation is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Charles, 57 AD3d556 [2008]; People v Gill, 54AD3d 965, 966 [2008]; People vRobbins, 48 AD3d 711 [2008]). In any event, most of the challenged remarks were faircomment on the evidence, permissible rhetorical comment, or responsive to the defense counsel'ssummation (see People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]; People v Henry, 59 AD3d 461[2009]; People v Charles, 57 AD3d556 [2008]; People v McHarris, 297 AD2d 824 [2002]). "To the extent that theprosecutor may have exceeded the bounds of permissible rhetorical comment, any error washarmless" (People v Carter, 36AD3d 624 [2007]; see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]; People v Charles, 57 AD3d 556[2008]).
Furthermore, contrary to the defendant's contention, defense counsel's failure to object tocertain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation did not constitute ineffectiveassistance of counsel (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Robbins, 48 AD3d 711[2008]; People v Gonzalez, 44AD3d 790 [2007]). Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Dickerson and Lott, JJ., concur.