| People v McGowan |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 07749 [111 AD3d 850] |
| November 20, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Rashard McGowan, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Diane R.Eisner, and Eunice Y. Lee of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Gary, J.), rendered May 12, 2011, convicting him of attempted assault in the first degreeand criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support hisconviction of attempted assault in the first degree is unpreserved for appellate review(see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Kolupa, 13 NY3d 786 [2009]). In any event,viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt of that crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling ourresponsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (seeCPL 470.15 [5]; People vDanielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to thefact-finder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor(see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946[2004]; People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490 [1987]). Upon reviewing the recordhere, we are satisfied that the verdict as to attempted assault in the first degree was notagainst the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by certain remarksmade by the prosecutor during summation is unpreserved for appellate review (seeCPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the challenged remarks were fairly responsive to thearguments and issues raised by defense counsel in summation, constituted fair commenton the evidence, or were within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible inclosing arguments (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396 [1981]; People vAshwal, 39 NY2d 105 [1976]). Furthermore, since the subject remarks were notimproper, defense counsel's failure to object to those remarks did not constituteineffective assistance of counsel (see People v Friel, 53 AD3d 667 [2008]; People v Rose, 47 AD3d848 [2008]). Eng, P.J., Dickerson, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.