| People v Hoke |
| 2013 NY Slip Op 07988 [111 AD3d 959] |
| November 27, 2013 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Shaun Hoke, Appellant. |
—[*1] Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and CamilleO'Hara Gillespie of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Mangano, Jr., J.), rendered May 20, 2011, convicting him of assault in the first degree,assault in the second degree, robbery in the first degree (three counts), and criminalpossession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, andimposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised itsdiscretion in granting the People's challenge for cause to a prospective juror whodivulged during voir dire that her son had recently been arrested and was beingprosecuted by the Kings County District Attorney's office. The prospective juror'sresponses to questioning during voir dire, construed as a whole, failed to demonstrate anabsolute belief that her son's arrest and prosecution would not have an influence on herverdict (see CPL 270.20 [1] [b]; People v Culhane, 33 NY2d 90, 107[1973]; People v Goodwin,64 AD3d 790, 791-792 [2009]).
The defendant's challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence is unpreserved forappellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d 484 [2008]). 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 beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility toconduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15[5]; People v Danielson, 9NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder'sopportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (seePeople v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004], cert denied 542 US 946 [2004];People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the record here,we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d633 [2006]).
The defendant's contention that certain comments made by the prosecutor duringsummation were improper and deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellatereview (see CPL 470.05 [2]), because he raised no objection to certainchallenged comments, made general objections to other challenged comments withoutalerting the trial court to his specific claims now raised on appeal and, when hisobjections to the remaining challenged comments were sustained, he [*2]failed to seek any further curative relief or move for amistrial (see People vBrooks, 89 AD3d 746, 747 [2011]; People v Bajana, 82 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2011]). In anyevent, certain challenged comments constituted fair comment on the evidence (seePeople v Miller, 239 AD2d 787, 789-790 [1997], affd 91 NY2d 372 [1998]).The remaining challenged comments, while they would have been better left unsaid, didnot deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Gonzalez, 83 AD3d 1093, 1094 [2011]).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Walker, 70 AD3d870, 871 [2010]) and, in any event, without merit (see People v Marthone,281 AD2d 562 [2001]). Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Hall and Cohen, JJ., concur.