| People v Singh |
| 2016 NY Slip Op 02673 [138 AD3d 767] |
| April 6, 2016 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Satnam Singh, Appellant. |
Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, NY (Jenin Younes of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano,Johnnette Traill, Jeanette Lifschitz, and Antara D. Kanth of counsel), forrespondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County(Holder, J.), rendered October 9, 2013, convicting him of aggravated criminal contempt,upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Although a closing argument is a basic element of a defense in a criminal trial(see Herring v New York, 422 US 853, 858 [1975]), the trial court may limitsummation to matters of evidence properly adduced at the trial (see People v Smith, 16 NY3d786, 787-788 [2011]; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109 [1976];People v Romano, 301 AD2d 666, 667 [2003]). Here, the Supreme Courtproperly precluded the defendant's counsel from arguing on summation that thedefendant did not understand the order of protection due to the lack of an interpreter incourt when the order was issued, since there was no evidence presented at trial that thedefendant did not understand English (see People v Smith, 16 NY3d at 787-788;People v Deir, 15 AD3d198, 198 [2005]; People v Romano, 301 AD2d at 667; People vTurner, 212 AD2d 818, 818 [1995]).
The defendant's arguments regarding the prosecutor's alleged improper commentsduring summation are unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). Inany event, most of the challenged remarks were within the broad bounds of permissiblerhetorical comment, a fair response to the defendant's summation, or fair comment on theevidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom (see People vHalm, 81 NY2d 819, 821 [1993]; People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399[1981]; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d at 109-110; People v Williams, 123 AD3d1152, 1152 [2014]). To the extent that any remaining challenged remarks wereimproper, they were not so egregious as to have deprived the defendant of a fair trial(see People v Williams, 123 AD3d at 1152).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, defense counsel's failure to object to certainremarks made by the prosecutor during summation did not constitute ineffectiveassistance of counsel (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713 [1998]; People v Torres, 72 AD3d709, 709 [2010]). Dillon, J.P., Chambers, Dickerson and Barros, JJ., concur.