People v. Brooks

Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, William H. Branigan, and Josette Simmons of counsel), for respondent.

MARK C. DILLON, J.P., RUTH C. BALKIN, ROBERT J. MILLER, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Gene Lopez, J.), rendered August 5, 2016, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, and jostling, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621, 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, upon the exercise of our factual review power (see CPL 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 did not preserve for appellate review his arguments regarding the prosecutor's summation. The defendant did not object to many of the comments that he now challenges as improper, the objections that he did raise during the prosecutor's summation were general one-word objections, and he did not move for a mistrial when two of his objections were sustained (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Negron, 150 A.D.3d 764, 765, 54 N.Y.S.3d 410 ; People v. Malave, 7 A.D.3d 542, 542, 775 N.Y.S.2d 588 ). In any event, the challenged remarks were responsive to the defense counsel's summation (see People v. Mairena, 160 A.D.3d 986, 986, 75 N.Y.S.3d 246, lv granted 31 N.Y.3d 1150, 83 N.Y.S.3d 432, 108 N.E.3d 506 ; People v. Malave, 7 A.D.3d at 542, 775 N.Y.S.2d 588 ), or constituted harmless error (see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 241–242, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787 ).

DILLON, J.P., BALKIN, MILLER and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.