| People v Adams |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 01826 [93 AD3d 734] |
| March 13, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v KeithAdams, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, JohnnetteTraill, and Merri Turk Lasky of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.),rendered March 1, 2010, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and criminal mischiefin the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the verdict with respect to his conviction of burglary in thesecond degree was against the weight of the evidence. In fulfilling our responsibility to conductan independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342,348 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view thewitnesses, 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 notagainst the weight of the evidence (seePeople v Romero, 7 NY3d 633, 643 [2006]). The fact that the defendant was acquittedon the count of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (see Penal Law§ 165.40) did not undermine the weight of the evidence supporting the jury's verdict on thecount of burglary in the second degree (see Penal Law § 140.25 [2]; People vRayam, 94 NY2d 557, 563 [2000]; People v Allen, 89 AD3d 741, 742 [2011], lv denied 18NY3d 881 [2012]).
The defendant challenges numerous summation remarks made by the prosecutor. Thedefendant's contentions are unpreserved for appellate review because defense counsel eitherfailed to object, made only general objections to the remarks, or failed to request curativeinstructions after certain objections were sustained (see People v Stewart, 89 AD3d 1044, 1045 [2011]; People v West, 86 AD3d 583, 584[2011]; People v Gabriel, 85 AD3d1201 [2011]; People v Paul, 82AD3d 1267, 1267-1268 [2011]). In addition, the defendant's motion for a mistrial, whichwas made after the completion of summations, was untimely and failed to preserve hiscontentions (see People v Paul, 82 AD3d at 1268; People v Salnave, 41 AD3d 872, 874 [2007]). In any event,although some of the challenged remarks were improper and should not be repeated (seePeople v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]), under the particular circumstances of thiscase, they did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial.
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.