People v Tiro
2012 NY Slip Op 07326 [100 AD3d 663]
November 7, 2012
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, December 26, 2012
As corrected through Wednesday, December 26, 2012


The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Carlos Tiro, Appellant.

[*1]Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Allegra Glashausser of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Amy Appelbaum, andJill Oziemblewski of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Guzman, J.),rendered November 4, 2010, convicting him of gang assault in the first degree, assault in thesecond degree (two counts), and attempted gang assault in the first degree, upon a jury verdict,and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial as a result of various commentsmade by the prosecutor and her use of slides as visual aids during summation is unpreserved forappellate review. The defendant either did not object to the comments and slides he nowchallenges, made only general objections, or "failed to request additional relief when theSupreme Court sustained objections or provided curative instructions" (People v Bajana, 82 AD3d 1111,1112 [2011]; see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]; People v Ahmed, 40 AD3d 869,869 [2007]). In any event, the prosecutor's comments were either fair response to the remarksmade by the defense counsel on summation (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821[1993]; People v Gonzalez, 11AD3d 558 [2004]; People vMalave, 7 AD3d 542 [2004]), or not so egregious as to have deprived the defendant of afair trial (see People v Mullings, 83AD3d 871, 872 [2011]; People vLewis, 72 AD3d 705, 707 [2010]; People v Norman, 40 AD3d 1130, 1131 [2007]). Moreover, underthe circumstances of this case, the prosecutor's use of slides as visual aids during summation didnot prejudice the defendant or deprive him of a fair trial (see generally People v Baker, 14 NY3d 266, 273-274 [2010]).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 85-86[1982]). Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Chambers and Roman, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.