People v. Perry

68 A.D.3d 1020, 889 N.Y.2d 861
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Perry. Read the opinion of the Court — 50 A.D.3d 1244

Opinion

The defendant’s claims of alleged improprieties in the prosecutor’s summation are unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant failed to raise any objections to the remarks he now contends were improper (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19 [1995]; People v Thompson, 62 AD3d 817, 818 [2009]). In any event, the remarks at issue were either fair comment on the evidence (see People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]; People v Scrimo, 67 AD3d 825 [2009]; People v Rodriguez, 67 AD3d 712 [2009]), or constituted harmless error (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]; People v Thompson, 62 AD3d at 818). Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Miller and Roman, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

People v. Perry, 68 A.D.3d 1020, 889 N.Y.2d 861 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

68 A.D.3d 1020 (People v. Perry) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Gray
652 N.E.2d 919 (New York Court of Appeals, 1995)
People v. Crimmins
326 N.E.2d 787 (New York Court of Appeals, 1975)
People v. Ashwal
347 N.E.2d 564 (New York Court of Appeals, 1976)
People v. Thompson
62 A.D.3d 817 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
People v. Rodriguez
67 A.D.3d 712 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
People v. Scrimo
67 A.D.3d 825 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)