| People v Santos |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 02768 [105 AD3d 1064] |
| April 24, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v John Santos, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, EllenC. Abbot, and Brooke E. Barnes of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Lasak, J.), rendered May 2, 2007, convicting him of burglary in the second degree,criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, petit larceny, criminal mischiefin the fourth degree, and possession of burglar's tools, upon a jury verdict, and imposingsentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's Batson challenge (see Batson v Kentucky, 476 US79 [1986]) was properly denied, as he failed to make the requisite prima facie showing ofdiscrimination. The defendant relied solely on the number of Latino venirepersons thatwere challenged to support his request for race-neutral explanations, and offered noshowing of circumstances sufficient to raise an inference of a pattern of discrimination(see People v Brown, 97 NY2d 500, 507-508 [2002]; People v Diaz, 59 AD3d459 [2009]; People vSeverino, 44 AD3d 1077 [2007]; People v Thigpen, 14 AD3d 518 [2005]).
The defendant's contention that certain comments made by the prosecutor duringsummation constituted reversible error is unpreserved for appellate review, since thedefendant made only general objections to several comments, did not request curativeinstructions when the objections were sustained, and did not timely move for a mistrial(see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v White, 5 AD3d 511 [2004]). In any event, thedefendant's contention is without merit because the challenged remarks were a fairresponse to the defense summation (see People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105 [1976];People v Diaz, 59 AD3d at 459; People v Lawson, 40 AD3d 657, 658 [2007]; People v Martinez, 17 AD3d484, 485 [2005]; People vIndelecio, 8 AD3d 406, 407 [2004]).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Dillon, J.P., Balkin, Austinand Cohen, JJ., concur.