Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Lauren E. Jones of counsel), for appellant. Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, Jeanette Lifschitz, and Roni C. Piplani of counsel), for respondent.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Griffin, J.), rendered October 11, 2012, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), 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 of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree is only partially preserved for appellate review ( seeCPL 470.05[2]; People v. Maldonado, 119 A.D.3d 610, 988 N.Y.S.2d 693). 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 of two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree beyond a reasonable doubt ( seePenal Law 265.03[1][b]; [3]; People v. Petitbrun, 123 A.D.3d 1057, 999 N.Y.S.2d 164; People v. Jones, 118 A.D.3d 912, 987 N.Y.S.2d 447). Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence ( seeCPL 470.15[5] ), 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 certain comments made by the prosecutor during his summation were improper and deprived him of a fair trial is largely unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v. Jorgensen, 113 A.D.3d 793, 978 N.Y.S.2d 361). In any event, the challenged summation remarks were fair comment on the evidence, constituted a fair response to defense counsel's summation, or otherwise do not warrant a reversal ( see People v. Harris, 117 A.D.3d 847, 985 N.Y.S.2d 643).
The defendant's contention that his right to confrontation was violated ( see Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177) is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit ( see People v. Tucker, 117 A.D.3d 1090, 986 N.Y.S.2d 246; People v. Fucito, 108 A.D.3d 777, 969 N.Y.S.2d 563).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. ENG, P.J., LEVENTHAL, HALL and MALTESE, JJ., concur.