| People v Willis |
| 2014 NY Slip Op 08360 [122 AD3d 950] |
| November 26, 2014 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Kelly Willis, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Lauren E. Jones of counsel), for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove andLinda Breen of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Firetog, J.), rendered May 2, 2012, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, upona jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the exclusion of his two children, ages one and three,from the courtroom deprived him of his right to a public trial is without merit (see People v Echevarria, 21NY3d 1 [2013]; People vHenry, 119 AD3d 607 [2014]; People v Davis, 43 AD3d 448 [2007]; People vSantiago, 277 AD2d 473 [2000]).
The defendant contends that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial as a result ofvarious comments made by the prosecutor on summation. The contention that theprosecutor improperly encouraged inferences of guilt based on facts not in evidence (see People v Fisher, 18 NY3d964 [2012]) is without merit, since the comments concerned permissible inferencesto be drawn from the evidence (see People v Tafur, 174 AD2d 642 [1991]). Thedefendant's contentions that the prosecutor vouched for the truthfulness of policewitnesses or bolstered their testimony, and shifted the burden of proof to the defense, areunpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Melendez, 16 NY3d869 [2011]), since the defendant objected on grounds other than those currentlyraised, and failed to move for a mistrial on the specific grounds he now asserts on appeal(see People v Jorgensen,113 AD3d 793 [2014]). In any event, reversal is not warranted, as the prosecutor'sremarks were fair comment on the evidence, permissible rhetorical comment, orresponsive to defense counsel's summation challenging police testimony (see People v Smith, 64 AD3d619 [2009]; People vMorrison, 59 AD3d 569 [2009]; People v Rodriguez, 207 AD2d 917[1994]). Leventhal, J.P., Hall, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.