| People v McArthur |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 00311 [157 AD3d 820] |
| January 17, 2018 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
[*1]
| The People of the State of New York,Respondent, v Maurice McArthur, Appellant. |
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Benjamin S. Litman of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, JohnnetteTraill, Ellen C. Abbot, and Kayonia L. Whetstone of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.),rendered April 28, 2015, convicting him of assault in the second degree (two counts), unlawfulfleeing a police officer in a motor vehicle in the third degree, reckless endangerment in thesecond degree, reckless driving, obstructing governmental administration in the second degree,resisting arrest, leaving the scene of an incident without reporting, and aggravated unlicensedoperation of a motor vehicle in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People vContes, 60 NY2d 620, 621 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish thedefendant's guilt of two counts of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05[3]), including the element of physical injury (Penal Law § 10.00 [9]), beyond areasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review ofthe evidence (see CPL 470.15 [5]; People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342 [2007]), we nevertheless accordgreat deference to the jury's opportunity to view witnesses, hear the testimony, and observedemeanor (see People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Upon reviewing the recordhere, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt as to those two counts was not against the weight ofthe evidence.
The defendant contends that certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summationdeprived him of a fair trial. A prosecutor has "broad latitude during summation, particularlywhen responding to the defense counsel's summation" (People v Cariola, 276 AD2d 800,800 [2000], citing People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396 [1981]; see People v Rhodes, 11 AD3d487, 488 [2004]). Here, most of the prosecutor's remarks were either fair comment on theevidence presented, fair response to the defendant's summation, or permissible rhetoricalcomment (see People v Pearson, 29AD3d 711 [2006]; People vGarner, 27 AD3d 764 [2006]; People v Collins, 12 AD3d 33 [2004]; cf. People v Ashwal,39 NY2d 105 [1976]; People vSmith, 28 AD3d 688, 689 [2006]; People v Lyking, 147 AD2d 504, 504-505[1989]). To the extent that any of the remaining challenged remarks were improper, their impactwas alleviated by the Supreme Court's curative instructions (see People v Baker, 14 NY3d 266, 273-274 [2010]; People vArce, 42 NY2d 179, 187 [1977]; People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d at 111; People v Daley, 50 AD3d 1051[2008]; People v [*2]Williams, 14 AD3d 519 [2005]), and those comments didnot deprive the defendant of a fair trial. Further, any other error in this regard was harmless, asthe evidence of the defendant's guilt was overwhelming, and there is no significant probabilitythat any error contributed to the defendant's convictions (see People v Crimmins, 36NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit. Chambers, J.P., Cohen, Barros andChristopher, JJ., concur.