PEOPLE v. MOSER (2001)

 Defendant contends that he was denied his right to testify before the Grand Jury and thus that County Court erred in denying his motion to dismiss the indictment on that ground.   We disagree.   Defendant failed to establish that he notified the District Attorney in writing that he wished to testify before the Grand Jury (see, CPL 190.50[5][a];  People v. Webb, 236 A.D.2d 872, 873, 653 N.Y.S.2d 999, lv. denied 90 N.Y.2d 865, 661 N.Y.S.2d 192, 683 N.E.2d 1066).   Defense counsel's failure to provide a more detailed affidavit in support of that motion does not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel (see generally, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400).   The court's Sandoval ruling did not constitute an abuse of discretion (see, People v. Gray, 84 N.Y.2d 709, 712, 622 N.Y.S.2d 223, 646 N.E.2d 444).   Contrary to defendant's contention, the court was not required to provide a more detailed recitation of the reasoning underlying its ruling (see, People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455, 459, 611 N.Y.S.2d 118, 633 N.E.2d 472).   Defendant's contention that reversal is mandated because of prosecutorial misconduct on summation is not preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05[2]).   In any event, the one incident of alleged prosecutorial misconduct did not deprive defendant of a fair trial (see, People v. Laraby, 219 A.D.2d 817, 632 N.Y.S.2d 355, lv. denied 88 N.Y.2d 849, 644 N.Y.S.2d 696, 667 N.E.2d 346).

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: