| People v Johnson |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 03565 [127 AD3d 1234] |
| April 29, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Navarro Johnson, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Kathleen Whooley of counsel), forappellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, JoyceAdolfsen, and Claibourne Henry of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Guzman, J.), rendered June 21, 2012, convicting him of attempted robbery in the firstdegree, attempted robbery in the second degree, assault in the third degree, and criminalpossession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposingsentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that certain comments made by the prosecutor during hersummation were improper and denied him a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate reviewsince he either failed to object to the comments he now challenges, made only a generalobjection, objected on grounds other than those currently raised, or failed to requestadditional instructions when the court gave curative instructions, and did not move for amistrial on the specific grounds he now asserts on appeal (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Joubert, 125 AD3d686 [2015]; People vWallace, 123 AD3d 1151 [2014]; People v Jorgensen, 113 AD3d 793, 794-795 [2014]). Inany event, the challenged remarks were fair comment on the evidence, fair response tothe defense summation (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 [1981];People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]), or were not so flagrant orpervasive as to deny the defendant a fair trial (see People v Thompson, 125 AD3d 899 [2015]; People v Joubert, 125 AD3d686 [2015]). To the extent that any prejudicial effect may have resulted from thechallenged remarks, it was ameliorated by the court's instructions (see People vGalloway, 54 NY2d at 399; People v Safian, 46 NY2d 181, 190 [1978];People v Jorgensen, 113 AD3d at 794-795). Defense counsel's failure to object tothe subject comments did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel (see People v Ennis, 11 NY3d403, 415 [2008]; People vStultz, 2 NY3d 277, 287 [2004]; People v Wallace, 123 AD3d 1151 [2014]; People v Rahman, 119 AD3d820, 821 [2014]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80,83 [1982]). Eng, P.J., Leventhal, Hall and Roman, JJ., concur.