| People v Caba |
| 2012 NY Slip Op 08543 [101 AD3d 896] |
| December 12, 2012 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Alexis Caba, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Joyce Slevin, andMelissa Causey of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Parker, J.),rendered May 17, 2011, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree,upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claim that the People made an improper "safe streets" argument insummation is unpreserved for appellate review, as he did not object to the remarks at issue(see CPL 470.05 [2]; People vParker-Davidson, 89 AD3d 1114 [2011]). In any event, contrary to the defendant'scontention, the prosecutor did not assert an unduly prejudicial "safe streets" argument (see People v Malave, 7 AD3d 542,543 [2004]; People v Tolliver, 267 AD2d 1007, 1008 [1999]). The remaining commentschallenged by the defendant were fair response to arguments made by defense counsel, were faircomment on the evidence, or otherwise did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Hudson, 54 AD3d774, 775 [2008]; People vOlivo, 23 AD3d 584 [2005]). Even if any of these comments did in some way denigratedefense counsel, they were not so derogatory as to deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v McDonald, 79 AD3d771, 772 [2010]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, certain testimony given by a prosecution witness didnot violate the trial court's in limine ruling. Even if the testimony did violate the ruling, the courtprovidently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for a mistrial based on thetestimony. The testimony was not prejudicial to the defendant, and the defendant rejected thecourt's offer to provide a curative instruction (see People v Moret, 290 AD2d 250, 251[2002]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).Mastro, J.P., Lott, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.