| People v Bran |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 02024 [82 AD3d 1000] |
| March 15, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Manfredi Bran, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Tammy J. Smiley and Donald Berk ofcounsel; Victoria Rosner on the brief), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Sullivan,J.), rendered July 22, 2008, convicting him of attempted murder in the second degree, assault inthe first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, and endangering thewelfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for reviewthe denial, after a hearing (Carter, J.), of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion whichwas to suppress certain physical evidence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the hearing court properly denied suppression ofcertain physical evidence found in the defendant's bedroom. " '[T]he police may lawfully conducta warrantless search when they have obtained the voluntary consent of a party who possesses therequisite degree of authority and control over the premises or personal property in question' " (People v Kelly, 58 AD3d 868, 869[2009], quoting People v Cosme, 48 NY2d 286, 290 [1979]). Here, the Peopleestablished that the defendant lived with his family and that the defendant's father, who thedefendant testified owned the premises where he resided, voluntarily granted the policepermission to enter the house and search the defendant's bedroom, which was shared withanother family member (see People v Kelly, 58 AD3d at 869; Matter of Isaiah P., 45 AD3d 772,773 [2007]; People v Forino, 39AD3d 664, 665 [2007]; People vDaniels, 22 AD3d 678, 679 [2005]).
In reviewing the defendant's contention that his trial counsel was ineffective, we must "avoidboth confusing true ineffectiveness with mere losing tactics and according undue significance toretrospective analysis" (People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 146 [1981]). Upon our review ofthe totality of the record, we are satisfied that the defendant's counsel provided meaningfulrepresentation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People vBaldi, 54 NY2d at 147).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain remarks made by theprosecutor during summation is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2];People v Hooker, 71 AD3d1160 [2010]; People v Douglas,64 AD3d 726 [2009]; People vDashosh, 59 AD3d 731 [2009]). In [*2]any event, thechallenged remarks were fair comment on the evidence, permissible rhetorical comment, or fairresponse to defense counsel's summation (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993];People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109 [1976]).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in anyevent, are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Covello, Balkin and Austin, JJ., concur.