| People v Hanson |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 07689 [100 AD3d 771] |
| November 14, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Pamela Hanson, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Rhea A. Grob ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J.),rendered June 22, 2009, convicting her of murder in the second degree and grand larceny in thefourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that she was deprived of a fair trial by the Supreme Court's failure todisclose and respond to two jury notes. Since the record is bereft of any evidence that these noteswere actually received by the Supreme Court, the defendant's contention is based on matterdehors the record and, therefore, is not properly before us on direct appeal (see People v Jenkins, 81 AD3d662, 663 [2011]; People vFarrier, 45 AD3d 603, 604 [2007]; People v Bramble, 37 AD3d 484, 485 [2007]; People vConyers, 298 AD2d 597, 598 [2002]).
The defendant's contention that the prosecutor made improper remarks during his summationis unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant either did not object to the remarks at issueor made only general objections (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Parker-Davidson, 89 AD3d 1114 [2011]). In any event,most of the challenged remarks were proper because they were within the broad bounds ofrhetorical comment permissible in closing arguments, responsive to arguments made by defensecounsel in summation, or constituted fair comment on the evidence (see People v Halm,81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981]; People vAshwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]; People v Brown, 79 AD3d 1142, 1142 [2010]; People v Torres, 71 AD3d 1063[2010]). To the extent that some of the challenged remarks were improper, such as a certain adhominem comment made about the defendant and a certain ad hominem comment made aboutdefense counsel, any error resulting from those remarks was harmless in light of theoverwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230,241-242 [1975]; People v Brown, 79 AD3d at 1142; People v Torres, 71 AD3d at1063). Furthermore, defense counsel's failure to object to the challenged remarks did notconstitute ineffective assistance of counsel (see People v Tonge, 93 NY2d 838, 840[1999]; People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Archer, 82 AD3d 781 [2011]; People v Moore, 77 AD3d 685,686 [2010]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Dillon, J.P., Austin, Sgroi and Cohen, JJ., concur.