| People v Blanco |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 04694 [84 AD3d 1392] |
| May 31, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Herman Blanco, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, JohnnetteTraill, and Danielle Hartman of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.),rendered January 5, 2009, convicting him of burglary in the first degree (three counts) and assaultin the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Prior to the commencement of trial, the prosecutor and defense counsel reached their ownSandoval compromise agreement (see People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371 [1974]).A stipulation setting forth the terms of the Sandoval agreement was placed on the recordin the defendant's presence in open court, without objection or comment by the defendant.However, on appeal the defendant contends that reversal is required because the record does notindicate whether he was present during the conference between the prosecutor and defensecounsel at which the Sandoval agreement was negotiated. We disagree. The informalconference between the attorneys in which the trial judge did not participate was not aSandoval hearing and, thus, did not constitute a material stage of the defendant's trial atwhich his presence was required (see People v Hightower, 286 AD2d 913, 914 [2001];People v Richardson, 243 AD2d 515, 516 [1997]; see also People v Davis, 302AD2d 866, 867 [2003]; cf. People v Monclavo, 87 NY2d 1029 [1996]).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain comments made bythe prosecutor during summation is unpreserved for appellate review because he did not object toany of the comments now alleged to be improper (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People vChardon, 83 AD3d 954 [2011]; People v St. Juste, 83 AD3d 742 [2011]; Peoplev Amico, 78 AD3d 1190, 1191 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 827 [2011]). In any event,the challenged comments were fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to bedrawn therefrom, or fair response to the defense summation (see People v Chardon, 83AD3d 954 [2011]; People v Paul, 82 AD3d 1267 [2011]; People v McDonald, 82AD3d 1125 [2011]; People v Amico, 78 AD3d at 1191), and did not exceed the broadbounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing arguments (see People v Galloway,54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981]; People v Archer, 82 AD3d 781 [2011]; People vStewart, 51 AD3d 826, 827 [2008]).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Covello, J.P., Eng, Leventhal andCohen, JJ., concur.