| People v Todd |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 05333 [108 AD3d 684] |
| July 17, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Lavelle Todd, Appellant. |
—[*1] Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Thomas C. Costello ofcounsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County(Efman, J.), rendered February 14, 2011, convicting him of manslaughter in the firstdegree and assault in the first degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposingsentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The evidence was legally sufficient to disprove the defendant's justification defense(see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]; People v Sedunova, 83 AD3d965, 966-967 [2011]; People v Brooks, 32 AD3d 616, 616-617 [2006]).Moreover, upon our independent review of the evidence pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), weare satisfied that the jury's rejection of that defense was not against the weight of theevidence (see People vRomero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]; People v Sedunova, 83 AD3d at 967).
On cross-examination, the prosecutor asked the defendant whether he knew that acertain person had "turned [him] into the police." This question was clearly improper, butthe court immediately intervened and subsequently delivered a strong and unequivocalcurative instruction. These ameliorative actions ensured that the prosecutor's improperquestion did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see CPL 470.15 [4] [a]; People v Ross, 104 AD3d878, 880 [2013]; People vRich, 78 AD3d 1200, 1201 [2010]; People v Fluellen, 2 AD3d 286, 287 [2003]). Thedefendant's contentions regarding the prosecutor's conduct on summation areunpreserved for appellate review inasmuch as he did not object to the comments he nowclaims were improper (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Alexander, 100 AD3d 649, 649-650 [2012]). Inany event, those comments were either fair response to defense counsel's summation, faircomment on the evidence, or permissible rhetoric (see People v Ashwal, 39NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]; People v Whitehurst, 70 AD3d 1057, 1058 [2010]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]). Eng, P.J., Balkin, Leventhal and Miller, JJ., concur.