| People v McKnight |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 03149 [72 AD3d 846] |
| April 13, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Ulysess McKnight, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Keith Dolan ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.),rendered January 2, 2007, convicting him of murder in the second degree and attempted murderin the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claim that he was deprived of a fair trial because the witnesses to whom theprosecutor referred in his opening statement did not testify is unpreserved for appellate review(see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Seabrooks, 244 AD2d 514 [1997]). In any event,when the prosecution fails to present witnesses they referred to in opening statements, "thegeneral rule is that, absent bad faith or undue prejudice, a trial will not be undone" (People vDe Tore, 34 NY2d 199, 207 [1974], cert denied sub nom. Wedra v New York, 419US 1025 [1974]; see People vPierre, 35 AD3d 893 [2006]). Here, there is no evidence that the prosecution acted inbad faith in failing to produce the witnesses and, under the circumstances of this case, thedefendant was not unduly prejudiced.
The defendant's contentions that he was deprived of a fair trial by the introduction ofevidence that he was wearing a bulletproof vest at the time of his arrest, and that the prosecutorimproperly commented on this evidence during summation, also are unpreserved for appellatereview (see People v Jones, 9AD3d 374 [2004]; People v Scotti, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]). In any event, thesecontentions are without merit (see People v Barrier, 298 AD2d 138, 139 [2002]).
The defendant's contention that it was illegal to impose consecutive sentences is withoutmerit (see People v Bonilla, 57AD3d 400, 401 [2008]; see generally People v Brathwaite, 63 NY2d 839, 843[1984]). Moreover, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90AD2d 80, 85 [1982]). Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ., concur.