| People v Jean |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 04792 [118 AD3d 1024] |
| June 25, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Akime Jean, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Bryan D. Kreykes of counsel), forappellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano,Johnnette Traill, and Deborah E. Wassel of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Margulis, J.), rendered April 17, 2012, convicting him of criminal possession of stolenproperty in the fifth degree, petit larceny, and criminal trespass in the third degree, upona jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contentions that the People improperly used his pretrial silence toimpeach his credibility at trial and made improper summation comments regarding hispretrial silence are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2];People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]; People v Fleming, 70 NY2d 947[1988]; People v Bellman,112 AD3d 732 [2013]; People v Williams, 107 AD3d 746 [2013]; People vEvans, 291 AD2d 569 [2002]).
In any event, the defendant's contentions are without merit. Prior to trial, thedefendant spoke to police officers and narrated the essential facts of his involvement inthe crime. Thus, the defendant could be cross-examined about his failure to inform thepolice at that time of exculpatory circumstances to which he testified at trial (seePeople v Savage, 50 NY2d 673, 676 [1980]; People v Fox, 60 AD3d 966 [2009]; People v Prashad, 46 AD3d844 [2007]; People v Davis, 256 AD2d 173 [1998]; People vSpinelli, 214 AD2d 135 [1995]).
The summation comments the defendant now challenges were fair comment on theevidence, responsive to arguments and theories raised by the defense, or otherwiseremained within the "broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closingargument" (People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981]; see also People v Williams,107 AD3d 746 [2013]; People v Ravenell, 307 AD2d 977 [2003]).
The defendant's attorney provided meaningful representation (see People vBenevento, 91 NY2d 708 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]).Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Hall and Maltese, JJ., concur.