| People v Caldwell |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 01765 [115 AD3d 870] |
| March 19, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Shea Caldwell, Appellant. |
—[*1] Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano,Johnnette Traill, and Laura T. Ross of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Kohm, J.), rendered July 11, 2011, convicting him of robbery in the first degree androbbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court's curtailment of hiscross-examination of prosecution witnesses deprived him of his right to present a defenseis unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant failed to object to the court'sinstructions limiting the cross-examinations (see People v Bernardez, 63 AD3d 1174 [2009], citingPeople v George, 67 NY2d 817 [1986]). In any event, the court's instructionswere proper and within its discretion, as the defendant's questions were not relevant,were only marginally relevant, or threatened to mislead the jury (see People v Greene, 110AD3d 827 [2013]; People vCastellanos, 65 AD3d 555, 556 [2009]; People v Goodman, 280 AD2d611 [2001]; People v Heung K. Sul, 234 AD2d 563 [1996]; People vAshner, 190 AD2d 238 [1993]).
The defendant's contention that the prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconductin his summation, and therefore deprived him of a fair trial, is not preserved for appellatereview, as the defendant either did not object to the comments, or did not object to theSupreme Court's rulings or request additional curative instructions (see CPL470.05 [2]; People vWright, 62 AD3d 916 [2009]; People v Comer, 73 NY2d 955 [1989];People v Tardbania, 72 NY2d 852 [1988]). In any event, the defendant'scontention is without merit. A prosecutor has "broad latitude during summation,particularly when responding to the defense counsel's summation" (People vCariola, 276 AD2d 800, 800 [2000], citing People v Galloway, 54 NY2d396 [1981]; see People vRhodes, 11 AD3d 487 [2004]). In this case, all but one of the prosecutor'sstatements were either fair comment on the evidence presented, fair response to thedefendant's summation, or permissible rhetorical comment (see People v Arce, 42NY2d 179 [1977]; People vMarcus, 112 AD3d 652 [2013]; People v Williams, 52 AD3d 851 [2008]; People v Garner, 27 AD3d764 [2006]; People v Brown, 233 AD2d 458 [1996]). Any error in allowingthe one improper statement was not so egregious as to have deprived the defendant of afair trial (see People v Tiro,100 AD3d 663 [2012]). Dillon, J.P., Hall, Austin and Sgroi, JJ., concur.