| People v Brooks |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 07855 [89 AD3d 746] |
| November 1, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v DarrylBrooks, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, JeanetteLifschitz, Suzanne D. O'Hare, and Gretchen Robinson of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter,J.), rendered July 17, 2009, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and menacing in thesecond degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that certain comments made by the prosecutor during summationwere improper and, thus, deprived him of a fair trial, is unpreserved for appellate review(see CPL 470.05 [2]), because he made only a general objection to one of the commentshe now challenges (see People v Tonge, 93 NY2d 838 [1999]; People v Nunez, 82 AD3d 1128,1129 [2011]), and did not object to the other comments he now challenges (see People v West, 86 AD3d 583,584 [2011]; People v Bajana, 82AD3d 1111, 1112 [2011]). In any event, although some of the prosecutor's commentsimproperly mischaracterized the defense as questioning the honesty of eyewitnesses, thecomments were not "so flagrant or pervasive as to deny the defendant a fair trial" (People v Almonte, 23 AD3d 392,394 [2005]; see People v Bajana, 82 AD3d at 1112; People v Rayford, 80 AD3d 780, 781 [2011]; People v Garcia-Villegas, 78 AD3d727, 728 [2010]; People vHendrix, 60 AD3d 1081, 1082-1083 [2009]). Moreover, the Supreme Court instructedthe jurors that they were the finders of fact, that the arguments of counsel were not evidence, andthat they were to assess the witnesses's credibility (see People v Valerio, 70 AD3d 869 [2010]).
Defense counsel's failure to object to the improper comments made by the prosecutor onsummation did not deprive the defendant of the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Taylor, 1 NY3d 174[2003]; People v Bajana, 82 AD3d at 1112). Moreover, defense counsel otherwiseprovided meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998];People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence, raised in his pro sesupplemental brief, is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People vHawkins, [*2]11 NY3d 484, 492 [2008]). In any event,viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes,60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guiltbeyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independentreview of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]); People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342[2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses,hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (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 theweight of the evidence (see People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]). Mastro, J.P., Eng, Belen and Hall, JJ., concur.