| People v Brown |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 09928 [79 AD3d 1142] |
| December 28, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v MalikBrown, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Jodi L. Mandel, andAdam Koelsch of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chun, J.),rendered April 23, 2009, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon a jury verdict,and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he was deprived of a fair trial because of certain allegedimproper remarks made by the prosecutor during summation. Other than the prosecutor's remarksthat the defendant alleges misrepresented the evidence and improperly suggested that only theguilty flee, which were generally objected to during summation and specifically objected to inpostsummation motions, the defendant's contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (seeCPL 470.05 [2]; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 911 [2006]; People v Dien, 77NY2d 885 [1991]; People v Brewster, 69 AD3d 750 [2010]). In any event, most of thechallenged remarks were proper because they were within the broad bounds of rhetoricalcomment permissible in closing arguments, fair comment on the evidence, or responsive toarguments and theories presented in the defense summation (see People v Halm, 81NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981]; People vAshwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]; People v Torres, 71 AD3d 1063 [2010];People v Turner, 214 AD2d 594 [1995]). To the extent that some of the challengedremarks were improper, any error resulting from those remarks was harmless (see People vCrimmins, 36 NY2d 230 [1975]; People v Martin, 54 AD3d 776, 777 [2008];People v Summa, 33 AD3d 735 [2006]). Prudenti, P.J., Florio, Balkin and Leventhal, JJ.,concur.