People v. Abreu

2018 NY Slip Op 6759

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: October 10, 2018
• Docket: 2017-01371
• Status: Published

Opinion

People v Abreu (2018 NY Slip Op 06759)

People v Abreu

2018 NY Slip Op 06759

Decided on October 10, 2018

Appellate Division, Second Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on October 10, 2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.
SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX
HECTOR D. LASALLE
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.

2017-01371
(Ind. No. 8503/13)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

William Abreu, appellant.

Talkin, Muccigrosso & Roberts, LLP, New York, NY (Sam Talkin of counsel), for appellant.

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove, Ruth E. Ross, and Jordan Cerruti of counsel), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vincent M. Del Giudice, J.), rendered November 29, 2016, convicting him of rape in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. By decision and order on motion dated June 5, 2017, this Court, inter alia, granted the defendant's motion to continue the stay of execution of the judgment pending hearing and determination of the appeal.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50(5).

The defendant contends that certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation deprived him of a fair trial and constituted reversible error because the prosecutor allegedly vouched for the credibility of the People's witnesses and referred to matters not in evidence. However, most of the challenged remarks were either fair comment on the evidence (see People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110), or responsive to arguments presented in the defense summation (see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399; People v Allen, 157 AD3d 810, 811). To the extent that any of the prosecutor's remarks were improper, the impact was alleviated by the Supreme Court's curative instructions or did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Keizer, 157 AD3d 903, 905; People v Vaughan, 156 AD3d 826, 827; People v Perdomo, 154 AD3d 886, 887).

RIVERA, J.P., HINDS-RADIX, LASALLE and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court