WILLIAM F. MASTRO
Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Nao Terai of counsel), for appellant. Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Thomas M. Ross, and Gamaliel Marrero of counsel), for respondent.
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P., REINALDO E. RIVERA, THOMAS A. DICKERSON, and JOSEPH J. MALTESE, JJ.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Garnett, J.), rendered November 21, 2012, convicting him of course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree and sexual abuse in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his convictions is unpreserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05 [2]; People v. Hawkins, 11 N.Y.3d 484, 492, 872 N.Y.S.2d 395, 900 N.E.2d 946; People v. Collins, 122 A.D.3d 873, 873, 996 N.Y.S.2d 365). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution ( see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 467 N.Y.S.2d 349, 454 N.E.2d 932), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( seeCPL 470.15[5] ), we nevertheless accord great deference to the jury's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor ( see People v. Mateo, 2 N.Y.3d 383, 410, 779 N.Y.S.2d 399, 811 N.E.2d 1053). Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v. Romero, 7 N.Y.3d 633, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902).
The defendant's contention that the prosecutor violated the Supreme Court's ruling limiting cross-examination of the defendant is unpreserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Aguilar, 79 A.D.3d 899, 900, 912 N.Y.S.2d 676) and, in any event, without merit ( see People v. Perez, 120 A.D.3d 514, 514, 990 N.Y.S.2d 590).
The defendant's contention that the prosecutor made improper comments during his summation is also unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v. Herring, 119 A.D.3d 958, 958–959, 989 N.Y.S.2d 883; People v. Alleyne, 114 A.D.3d 804, 805, 979 N.Y.S.2d 845). In any event, the challenged comments constituted fair response to the defense summation, fair comment on the evidence, or were otherwise within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible during summation ( see People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 400, 446 N.Y.S.2d 9, 430 N.E.2d 885; People v. Dobbins, 123 A.D.3d 1140, 1140, 997 N.Y.S.2d 501). Furthermore, there is no merit to the defendant's contention that defense counsel was ineffective because he failed to object to the challenged comments ( see People v. Friel, 53 A.D.3d 667, 668, 862 N.Y.S.2d 105).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).