People v. Sostre

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sostre

282 A.D.2d 766, 724 N.Y.S.2d 350, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4275

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 30, 2001·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered October 4, 1999, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenges to various remarks made by the prosecutor in his opening and closing statements to the jury are for the most part unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, those remarks were either fair comment on the evidence, permissive rhetorical comment, responsive to the defendant’s summation (see, People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105; People v Thompson, 271 AD2d 555; People v Zephir, 226 AD2d 408), or not so prejudicial as to constitute reversible error in light of the curative instructions given by the court and the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). Bracken, P. J., Florio, Schmidt and Adams, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.), rendered October 4, 1999, convicting him of robbery in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenges to various remarks made by the prosecutor in his opening and closing statements to the jury are for the most part unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, those remarks were either fair comment on the evidence, permissive rhetorical comment, responsive to the defendant’s summation (see, People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105; People v Thompson, 271 AD2d 555; People v Zephir, 226 AD2d 408), or not so prejudicial as to constitute reversible error in light of the curative instructions given by the court and the overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). Bracken, P. J., Florio, Schmidt and Adams, JJ., concur.

People v. Sostre, 282 A.D.2d 766, 724 N.Y.S.2d 350, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4275 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

282 A.D.2d 766 (People v. Sostre) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related