| People v Alexander |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 07310 [100 AD3d 649] |
| November 7, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Michael Alexander, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Nicoletta J.Caferri, and Merri Turk Lasky of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Cooperman, J.), rendered December 3, 2008, convicting him of murder in the second degree(two counts), burglary in the first degree (three counts), assault in the second degree (twocounts), attempted assault in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the fourthdegree (four counts), and endangering the welfare of a child, upon a jury verdict, and imposingsentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court properly declined to give acircumstantial evidence charge, since the prosecution's case involved some direct evidence(see People v Daddona, 81 NY2d 990, 992 [1993]; People v Ruiz, 52 NY2d 929,930 [1981]; People v Barnes, 50 NY2d 375, 380 [1980]; People v McCoy, 30 AD3d 441,443 [2006]).
Moreover, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant'srequest to substitute counsel (see Peoplev Porto, 16 NY3d 93, 99-100 [2010]; People v Linares, 2 NY3d 507, 510 [2004]; People vArroyave, 49 NY2d 264, 270 [1980]; People v Stevenson, 36 AD3d 634, 634-635 [2007]).
The defendant's contention, raised in his pro se supplemental brief, that certain commentsmade by the prosecutor during summation deprived him of a fair trial, is unpreserved forappellate review because he failed to object to any of the comments (see CPL 470.05 [2];People v Kinard, 96 AD3d 976,977 [2012]; People v West, 86AD3d 583, 584 [2011]). In any event, the comments were either responsive to defensecounsel's summation, fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawntherefrom, or permissible rhetorical comment (see People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105,109-110 [1976]; People v Stewart,89 AD3d 1044, 1045 [2011]; People v Cardova, 88 AD3d 1008, 1009 [2011]).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplementalbrief, either are without merit or do not warrant reversal. Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Chambers andRoman, JJ., concur.