PEOPLE v. LIVERPOOL

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and a new trial is ordered.

During summation the prosecutor improperly vouched for the prosecution's main witness ( see People v Collins, 12 AD3d 33), argued that the defendant had a general propensity to commit crime ( see People v Sanders, 303 AD2d 694), suggested that the grand jury indictment constituted evidence of the defendant's guilt ( see People v Jamal, 307 AD2d 267; People v LaDolce, 196 AD2d 49), and made additional unduly prejudicial and inflammatory remarks ( see People v Robinson, 260 AD2d 508). The cumulative effect of these errors was to deprive the defendant of a fair trial in this single-eyewitness case. Accordingly, a new trial is required.

In light of our determination, we need not consider the defendant's remaining contentions.