| People v Singletary |
| 2015 NY Slip Op 07688 [132 AD3d 914] |
| October 21, 2015 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Henry Singletary, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Paul Skip Laisure of counsel), forappellant.
Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Jodi L.Mandel, and Sarah E. Nudelman of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County(Guzman, J.), rendered December 3, 2012, convicting him of burglary in the seconddegree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the prosecutor's summation remarks deprived him ofa fair trial is not preserved for appellate review, as the defendant either did not object tothe comments, or did not object to the Supreme Court's rulings or request additionalcurative instructions (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Comer, 73 NY2d 955[1989]; People v Tardbania, 72 NY2d 852 [1988]; People v Wright, 62 AD3d916 [2009]). In any event, most of the prosecutor's remarks were within the broadbounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing arguments, and constituted fairresponse to arguments made by defense counsel in summation or fair comment on theevidence (see People v Halm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People vGalloway, 54 NY2d 396, 401 [1981]; People v Sheehan, 105 AD3d 873, 875 [2013]; People v Maldonado, 55 AD3d626, 628 [2008]; People v Shagi, 288 AD2d 495, 496 [2001]; People vTorres, 121 AD2d 663, 664 [1986]). To the extent that some of the prosecutor'scomments were improper, any error was not so egregious as to have deprived thedefendant of a fair trial (seePeople v Portes, 125 AD3d 794 [2015]; People v Caldwell, 115 AD3d 870 [2014]; People v Stevens, 114 AD3d969, 970 [2014]; People vTiro, 100 AD3d 663 [2012]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80,85-86 [1982]). Dillon, J.P., Miller, Duffy and LaSalle, JJ., concur.