| People v Bunting |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 00176 [146 AD3d 794] |
| January 11, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Leon Bunting, Appellant. |
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, NY (Jaclyn Epstein, Rhys Bortignon, Paul Carberry,Louis O'Neill, and Leila Hull of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, Acting District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, ThomasM. Ross, and James C. Manning of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DelGiudice, J.), rendered October 28, 2013, as amended October 31, 2013, convicting himof assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.
The defendant was convicted of assault in the second degree (Penal Law§ 120.05 [3]) for causing injury to a police officer by striking him with a carwhile trying to evade the police.
The defendant's contention that certain statements made by the prosecutor duringsummation deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review (seeCPL 470.05 [2]; People vRomero, 7 NY3d 911 [2006]; People v Read, 97 AD3d 702, 703 [2012]). In any event,some of the challenged remarks made by the prosecutor in summation were fair commenton the evidence, remained within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible insummations, or were responsive to the summation of defense counsel (see People vHalm, 81 NY2d 819 [1993]; People v Flowers, 102 AD3d 885, 886 [2013]). Whilesome of the challenged remarks, including those which denigrated the defense, wereimproper (see People vIrving, 130 AD3d 844 [2015]; People v Brown, 26 AD3d 392 [2006]; People v Pagan, 2 AD3d879 [2003]), they were either sufficiently addressed by the Supreme Court'sinstructions to the jury or not so egregious as to have deprived the defendant of a fairtrial (see People v Singh,138 AD3d 767, 768 [2016]; People v Flowers, 102 AD3d at 886; People v Persaud, 98 AD3d527, 529 [2012]; People vRogers, 92 AD3d 903 [2012]; People v Banyan, 60 AD3d 861 [2009]).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, he was not denied the effective assistance ofcounsel due to defense counsel's failure to object to certain improper remarks made bythe prosecutor during summation (see People v Wragg, 26 NY3d 403, 411-412 [2015];People v Tonge, 93 NY2d 838, 840 [1999]; People v Benevento, 91NY2d 708 [1998]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80[1982]). Rivera, J.P., Chambers, Roman and LaSalle, JJ., concur.