| People v Belle |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 00113 [113 AD3d 630] |
| January 8, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Byron Belle, Also Known as Byron Bells,Appellant. |
—[*1] Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove andRhea A. Grob of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Ingram, J.), rendered May 11, 2010, convicting him of assault in the second degree andcriminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposingsentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the prosecutor improperly cross-examined a defensewitness with respect to that witness's failure to come forward at an earlier date is withoutmerit. The prosecutor established a proper foundation pursuant to People vDawson (50 NY2d 311 [1980]) before questioning that witness (see People v Bryan, 55 AD3d921 [2008]; People vReid, 43 AD3d 1087 [2007]). The defendant's contention that the SupremeCourt should have directed the prosecutor to cease questioning that witness with respectto that testimony once that witness explained why he did not come forward sooner iswithout merit. The defendant's further contention regarding that witness's testimony isunpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; cf. People vStewart, 172 AD2d 862 [1991]), and we decline to review it in the exercise of ourinterest of justice jurisdiction.
The defendant's contention that the prosecutor made improper comments onsummation is unpreserved for appellate review, since defense counsel did not object tothe comments the defendant now challenges on appeal (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d911, 912 [2006]; People vBajana, 82 AD3d 1111, 1112 [2011]).
Defense counsel's failure to object to the challenged summation comments did notdeprive the defendant of the effective assistance of counsel (see People v Taylor, 1 NY3d174 [2003]; People vBrooks, 89 AD3d 746, 747 [2011]; People v Bajana, 82 AD3d at 1112).
To the extent the defendant challenges the Supreme Court's instruction with respectto the justification defense, he did not request a different or supplemental charge, and didnot object to the court's charge as given. Thus, his challenge is unpreserved for appellatereview (see People v Henry, 306 AD2d 539, 539-540 [2003]), and we decline toreview it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Skelos, J.P., Dillon,Dickerson and Austin, JJ., concur.