PEOPLE v. ROMERO (2006)

 OPINION OF THE COURT

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

 Defendant argues that various comments by the prosecutor during his summation were improper and deprived him of a fair trial.   Most of the remarks identified by defendant on appeal are unreviewable because they went unchallenged at trial (see e.g. People v. Tardbania, 72 N.Y.2d 852, 853, 532 N.Y.S.2d 354, 528 N.E.2d 507 [1988] ), were met with only unspecified, general objections (see e.g. People v. Harris, 98 N.Y.2d 452, 491 n. 18, 749 N.Y.S.2d 766, 779 N.E.2d 705 [2002];  People v. Tonge, 93 N.Y.2d 838, 839-840, 688 N.Y.S.2d 88, 710 N.E.2d 653 [1999] ), or were raised for the first time in a postsummations mistrial motion (see e.g. People v. LaValle, 3 N.Y.3d 88, 116, 783 N.Y.S.2d 485, 817 N.E.2d 341 [2004] ).   Although a statement about defense counsel prompted a specific objection on the ground of burden-shifting, the trial court correctly concluded that the comment was not improper and, in order to eliminate any possibility of prejudice to defendant, the court issued a curative instruction that the People had the burden of proving every element of each charged offense.   In addition, the court sustained an objection to the prosecutor's  reference to a plea agreement reached in an unrelated, high-profile federal case, and it cannot be said that this isolated remark, viewed in conjunction with the entire summation and the trial court's corrective action, deprived defendant of his right to a fair trial.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed in a memorandum.

MEMORANDUM.

Chief Judge KAYE and Judges CIPARICK, ROSENBLATT, GRAFFEO, READ, SMITH and PIGOTT concur.