| People v Ormejuste |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 03283 [117 AD3d 756] |
| May 7, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Dario Ormejuste, Appellant. |
Joseph F. DeFelice, Kew Gardens, N.Y., for appellant.
Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Robert A. Schwartz and AndreaM. DiGregorio of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County(Carter, J.), rendered July 25, 2012, convicting him of murder in the first degree, murderin the second degree (three counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the seconddegree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review thedenial, after a hearing (St. George, J.), of those branches of the defendant's omnibusmotion which were to suppress physical evidence and his statements to law enforcementofficials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the evidence presented at the suppressionhearing demonstrated that the initial warrantless entry into his home by the police fellwithin the emergency doctrine exception to the warrant requirement (see People vMolnar, 98 NY2d 328, 329 [2002]; People v Mitchell, 39 NY2d 173,177-178 [1976], cert denied 426 US 953 [1976]; People v Longboat, 278AD2d 836 [2000]). Accordingly, the County Court properly denied that branch of thedefendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress the physical evidence obtained fromhis home.
The defendant contends that the statements he made to law enforcement officialsshould have been suppressed. However, the specific arguments asserted by the defendanton appeal to support this contention are unpreserved for appellate review (seeCPL 470.05 [2]; People vFowler, 101 AD3d 898 [2012]; People v Philips, 30 AD3d 620 [2006]). In any event, thedefendant's contention is without merit (see People v White, 40 AD3d 662 [2007], affd on othergrounds 10 NY3d 286 [2008], cert denied 555 US 897 [2008]; People v Velazquez, 33 AD3d352 [2006]; People v Hester, 161 AD2d 665 [1990]). Accordingly, theCounty Court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which wasto suppress his statements to law enforcement officials.
The defendant's contention that various comments made by the prosecutor duringsummation were improper and require reversal is unpreserved for appellate review, as thedefendant did not object to any of those remarks (see People v Kinard, 96 AD3d 976 [2012]). In any event,the contested remarks were responsive to arguments and theories presented in thedefense's summation (seePeople v Brown, 90 AD3d 575 [2011], affd 21 NY3d 739 [2013]), werepermissible rhetorical comment (see People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110[1976]; People vMcGowan, 111 AD3d 850 [2013]), or constituted harmless error (see Peoplev Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]; People v Hanson, 100 AD3d 771 [2012], lv granted21 NY3d 1016 [2013]).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in anyevent, without merit. Mastro, J.P., Lott, Sgroi and LaSalle, JJ., concur.