People v. Adam
This text of 58 A.D.3d 862 (People v. Adam) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Konviser, J.), rendered July 28, 2006, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, and possession of burglar’s tools, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant’s contention that the prosecutor’s summation remarks constituted reversible error is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant either failed to object to remarks he now contests or made only a general objection (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 911 [2006]; People v Garcia, 52 AD3d 734 [2008]). In any event, the challenged comments were either responsive to defense counsel’s summation or fair comment on the evidence (see People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105 [1976]; People v Rhodes, 11 AD3d 487 [2004]; People v Pender, 8 AD3d 409 [2004]). Spolzino, J.P, Covello, Balkin and Belen, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
58 A.D.3d 862, 870 N.Y.S.2d 920, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-adam-nyappdiv-2009.