| People v Desir |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 00225 [102 AD3d 809] |
| January 16, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Clifford Desir, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Thomas M.Ross, and Kateryna Imus of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Mullen, J.), rendered July 27, 2009, and (2) an amended judgment of the same court(Marrus, J.), rendered February 25, 2010, convicting him of robbery in the first degree(two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the appeal from the judgment is dismissed, as that judgment wassuperseded by the amended judgment; and it is further,
Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in allowing certainreferences to his parole violation hearing is unpreserved for appellate review. Thedefendant did not object to any of the complained-of remarks at trial, and when theSupreme Court issued its own curative instruction, the defendant failed to request furtherinstructions or move for a mistrial (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Adams, 93 AD3d734, 735 [2012]; People vParker-Davidson, 89 AD3d 1114 [2011]; People v Johnson, 45 AD3d 606 [2007]). In any event,significantly, the initial reference to the defendant's parole violation hearing was madeduring the defendant's cross-examination of one of the complainants, and the courtameliorated any possible prejudice to the defendant by ensuring that the crime underlyinghis parole was not divulged and by instructing the jury that the defendant's parole statuswas "of no consequence" and was not to be considered "in any way" (see People vJones, 276 AD2d 292 [2000]; People v Johnson, 219 AD2d 809 [1995]).
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court's admission of certain testimonyelicited from a firearms expert and the prosecutor's reference to that testimony duringsummation constituted reversible error also is unpreserved for appellate review, as thedefendant did not object to either the complained-of testimony or the summationcomment (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Torres, 71 AD3d 1063 [2010]). In any event, thetestimony was relevant to the crimes charged, and the prosecutor's summation commentwas a fair response to remarks made by the defendant's attorney during summation (see People v Perez, 18 AD3d480 [2005]; People v Jones, 294 AD2d 517 [2002]; People v [*2]Russo, 201 AD2d 512, 513 [1994], affd 85NY2d 872 [1995]).
We reject the defendant's contention that he was deprived of the effective assistanceof counsel. The record shows that the defendant's attorney provided meaningfulrepresentation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Stiff, 60 AD3d1094 [2009]; People vRobbins, 48 AD3d 711 [2008]). Mastro, J.P., Rivera, Dickerson and Lott, JJ.,concur.