| People v Rodney |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 04781 [96 AD3d 880] |
| June 13, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Matthew Rodney, Also Known as Benjamin Antonio,Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, JohnnetteTraill, and Suzanne H. Sullivan of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lewis, J.),rendered November 20, 2007, convicting him of murder in the second degree and criminalpossession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court improperly permitted the prosecutor topresent him as a threatening figure, and aided the prosecutor in doing so, is unpreserved forappellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Tonge, 93 NY2d 838, 839-840[1999]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]). In any event, the defendant's contentionis without merit.
The defendant's contention that the prosecutor made improper comments on summation isunpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). The defendant's objections weregeneral, one-word objections (see People v Tonge, 93 NY2d at 839-840; People v Salnave, 41 AD3d 872,874 [2007]), and he failed to request additional relief when the Supreme Court sustained hisobjections (see People v Bajana, 82AD3d 1111, 1112 [2011]; People v Salnave, 41 AD3d at 874). Moreover, his belatedmotion for a mistrial did not give the trial court the opportunity to remedy the alleged errors(see People v Salnave, 41 AD3d at 874; People v Bruen, 136 AD2d 648, 649[1988]). In any event, a new trial is not warranted. We agree with the defendant that theprosecutor made two improper comments on summation, one comment denigrating the defenseand the other inflammatory. We further agree that evidence that the defendant possessed a gunclip roughly two months after the murder, which was not ruled on at the pretrial hearing, wasimproperly admitted. However, the cumulative effect of these errors was harmless, as there wasoverwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, and no significant probability that the errorscontributed to his convictions (seePeople v Arafet, 13 NY3d 460, 467 [2009]; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230,241-242 [1975]).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Angiolillo, J.P., Belen, Roman andSgroi, JJ., concur.