People v Brown
2011 NY Slip Op 04486 [84 AD3d 1263]
May 24, 2011
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, July 6, 2011


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

[*1]Gail Gray, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Amy Appelbaum, andMelissa J. Feldman of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D'Emic, J.),rendered November 25, 2003, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, assault in thefirst degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. In fulfillingour responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (seeCPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accordgreat deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observedemeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946[2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here,we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (seePeople v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).

The defendant's challenges to certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation areunpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant failed to object to the challenged remarks atthe trial (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v James, 72 AD3d 844, 845 [2010];People v Wilson, 71 AD3d 799, 800 [2010]). In any event, the challenged remarks werefair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, permissiblerhetorical comment, or responsive to defense counsel's summation (see People v Ashwal,39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]; People v Ariza, 77 AD3d 844, 846 [2010]; People vTorres, 72 AD3d 709 [2010]).

The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event,is without merit. Covello, J.P., Chambers, Lott and Miller, 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.