| People v Saunders |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 03387 [127 AD3d 1111] |
| April 22, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Aaron Saunders, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Nao Terai of counsel), for appellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, ThomasM. Ross, and Gamaliel Marrero of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Garnett, J.), rendered November 21, 2012, convicting him of course of sexual conductagainst a child in the second degree and sexual abuse in the third degree, upon a juryverdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support hisconvictions is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Hawkins, 11 NY3d484, 492 [2008]; People vCollins, 122 AD3d 873, 873 [2014]). In any event, viewing the evidence in thelight most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620[1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond areasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independentreview of the weight of the evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]), we neverthelessaccord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony,and observe demeanor (see People v Mateo, 2 NY3d 383, 410 [2004]). Uponreviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against theweight of the evidence (seePeople v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant's contention that the prosecutor violated the Supreme Court's rulinglimiting cross-examination of the defendant is unpreserved for appellate review (seeCPL 470.05 [2]; People vAguilar, 79 AD3d 899, 900 [2010]) and, in any event, without merit (see People v Perez, 120 AD3d514, 514 [2014]).
The defendant's contention that the prosecutor made improper comments during hissummation is also unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Herring, 119 AD3d 958, 958-959 [2014]; People v Alleyne, 114 AD3d804, 805 [2014]). In any event, the challenged comments constituted fair response tothe defense summation, fair comment on the evidence, or were otherwise within thebroad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible during summation (see People vGalloway, 54 NY2d 396, 400 [1981]; People v Dobbins, 123 AD3d 1140, 1140 [2014]).Furthermore, there is no merit to the defendant's contention that defense counsel wasineffective because he failed to object to the challenged comments (see People v Friel, 53 AD3d667, 668 [2008]).
[*2] The sentenceimposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Mastro,J.P., Rivera, Dickerson and Maltese, JJ., concur.