PEOPLE v. WILLIAMS

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's warrantless arrest inside a house was justified under the exigent circumstances exception to the Payton rule ( see Payton v New York, 445 US 573; People v Scott, 6 AD3d 465).

To the extent that the defendant argues that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, the issue is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defense counsel made only a general motion to dismiss at the close of the People's case ( see CPL 470.05; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19; People v Anthony, 21 AD3d 903, 903-904). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ( see People v Gonzalez, 193 AD2d 360, 361). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power ( see CPL 470.15), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633).

The failure to raise an objection to the remarks made by the prosecutor on summation renders the defendant's claim that he was denied his right to a fair trial unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Garner, 27 AD3d 764). In any event, the comments alleged to be inflammatory and prejudicial were all either fair comment on the evidence ( see People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105), responsive to arguments and theories presented in the defense summation ( see People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396), or harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt ( see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241).

The failure to either request specific instructions with regard to a jury charge or to timely object to the charge as given renders the defendant's claim that he was denied his right to a fair trial as a result of the court's instruction unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Edwards, 292 AD2d 393, 394). In any event, when considered as a whole, the charge sufficiently conveyed the correct standard ( see People v Fields, 87 NY2d 821, 823).

The defendant's claim that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel is without merit ( see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713).