| People v Allen |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 01334 [114 AD3d 958] |
| February 26, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Marvin Allen, Appellant. |
—[*1] Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Jodi L.Mandel, Joanna Elm, and Adam Koelsch of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Sullivan, J.), rendered October 18, 2011, convicting him of criminal possession of aweapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the Supreme Court, upon affording theparties an opportunity to be heard on the matter, did not improvidently exercise itsdiscretion in permitting the jurors to take the subject gun into the deliberation room(see CPL 310.20 [1]; People v Ziminski, 34 AD3d 507 [2006]). The defendantfailed to establish that the jury conducted an experiment, let alone an experiment notwithin the ken of everyday experience and knowledge concerning a material issue in thecase (see People vSturdivant, 6 AD3d 733 [2004]).
The defendant's contention that certain remarks made by the prosecutor duringsummation constituted reversible error is unpreserved for appellate review. Defensecounsel either did not object to the remarks at issue or made only a general one-wordobjection, and his motion for a mistrial, made after the completion of summations, wasuntimely (see People vRead, 97 AD3d 702 [2012]; People v Malave, 7 AD3d 542 [2004]). In any event, thecontention is without merit. The remarks either were responsive to the defense'ssummation, were permissible rhetorical comment, constituted fair comment on theevidence or the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom, or otherwise do not warrantreversal (see generally People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819 [1993]; People v Wright, 110 AD3d836 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1045 [2013]; Matter of State of New York vColvin M., 110 AD3d 818 [2013]; Matter of State of New York v Carmelo M., 110 AD3d 818[2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 859 [2014]). Mastro, J.P., Dickerson, Lott andHinds-Radix, JJ., concur.