| People v Wright |
| 2011 NY Slip Op 08959 [90 AD3d 679] |
| December 6, 2011 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v William Wright, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Thomas M. Ross, andCatherine Dagonese of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.),rendered April 7, 2008, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, assault in the seconddegree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
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 as he did not object to theremarks at issue (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951, 953[1981]; People v Clemente, 84AD3d 829, 830-831 [2011]; Peoplev Charles, 57 AD3d 556, 556 [2008]; People v Gill, 54 AD3d 965, 966 [2008]). In any event, thechallenged remarks were fair comment on the evidence, permissible rhetorical comment, orresponsive to defense counsel's summation (see People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110[1976]).
The defendant's contention concerning the trial court's charge on the issue of justificationalso is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant failed to object to the charge as givenor request a supplemental charge (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Brooks, 71 AD3d 1043[2010]; People v Peterkin, 23 AD3d678, 678 [2005]; People vMoultrie, 6 AD3d 730 [2004]). In any event, the trial court's charge, viewed in itsentirety, adequately conveyed the appropriate standard to the jury (see People v Wesley,76 NY2d 555, 559 [1990]; People v Goetz, 68 NY2d 96, 114 [1986]; People vMoultrie, 6 AD3d at 730; People v Martinez, 243 AD2d 732, 732 [1997]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not deprived of the effective assistance ofcounsel (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 714 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; People v Brooks, 71 AD3d at 1043).
The defendant's remaining contentions, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, areunpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, are without merit. Skelos, J.P., Hall, Lott andCohen, JJ., concur.