| People v Taylor |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 05660 [120 AD3d 519] |
| August 6, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Kamell Taylor, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Tammy Linn of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano,Nicoletta J. Caferri, and William H. Branigan of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Aloise, J.), rendered April 17, 2012, convicting him of criminal possession of a weaponin the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings upfor review the denial, after a hearing, of those branches of the defendant's omnibusmotion which were to suppress physical evidence and statements made by him to lawenforcement officials.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the hearing court improperly denied that branch of hisomnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence because the testimony of thearresting officer at the pretrial suppression hearing was incredible and patently tailored toovercome constitutional objections. However, this contention is unpreserved forappellate review, as the defendant failed to raise this specific claim before the hearingcourt (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Inge, 90 AD3d 675, 676 [2011]; People v Rivera, 27 AD3d489, 490 [2006]). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit. "Thecredibility determinations of a hearing court are entitled to great deference on appeal, andwill not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record" (People v Inge, 90AD3d at 676; see People vMoran, 68 AD3d 786, 787 [2009]; People v Martinez, 58 AD3d 870, 870-871 [2009]). As thearresting officer testified that he saw a gun in plain view in the defendant's waistband,the officer had probable cause to arrest him (see People v Madrid, 52 AD3d 530, 531 [2008]; People v Haynes, 16 AD3d434, 435 [2005]). On appeal, the defendant asserts no independent ground for thesuppression of his statements to law enforcement officials. Accordingly, the hearingcourt properly denied those branches of the defendant's omnibus motion which were tosuppress both physical evidence and his statements to law enforcement officials.
The defendant's claim that prosecutorial misconduct deprived him of a fair trial isunpreserved for appellate review, as he failed to object to most of the allegedly impropersummation comments, and made only general objections as to others (see CPL470.05 [2]; People vWright, 90 AD3d 679 [2011]). A general objection to a remark made during asummation is insufficient to preserve a claim for appellate review; a party must specify abasis for the objection (see People v Tonge, 93 NY2d 838, 839-840 [1999];People v Tevaha, 84 NY2d 879, 881 [1994]). In any event, the contention iswithout merit. The challenged remarks were either permissible rhetorical comment(see People v Galloway, [*2]54 NY2d 396[1981]; People v Macuil, 67AD3d 1025, 1026 [2009]), fair response to the arguments and issues raised by thedefense (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]), fair comment on theevidence (see People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109 [1976]), cured by the trialcourt's charge to the jury, to which the defendant did not object (see People v Pocesta, 71 AD3d920 [2010]), or, if improper, were not so egregious as to deprive the defendant of afair trial (see People vPersaud, 98 AD3d 527, 529 [2012]; People v Pocesta, 71 AD3d at921).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Rivera, J.P., Balkin,Leventhal and Roman, JJ., concur.