PEOPLE v. CHURCH (1997)

 We reject the contention of defendant that he was deprived of a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct.   Defendant failed to object to many of the alleged instances of misconduct, thereby failing to preserve those alleged instances for our review (see, CPL § 470.05[2] ).   County Court sustained those objections that were raised, and defendant did not request curative instructions or move for a mistrial.   Thus, “the court ‘must be deemed to have corrected the error[s] to the defendant's satisfaction’ ” (People v. Balkum, 233 A.D.2d 929, 930, 649 N.Y.S.2d 874, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 939, 655 N.Y.S.2d 890, 678 N.E.2d 503, quoting People v. Williams, 46 N.Y.2d 1070, 1071, 416 N.Y.S.2d 792, 390 N.E.2d 299).   In any event, the conduct of the prosecutor, although at times improper, was not so egregious as to deprive defendant of a fair trial (see, People v. Curley, 159 A.D.2d 969, 970, 552 N.Y.S.2d 768, lv. denied 76 N.Y.2d 733, 558 N.Y.S.2d 895, 557 N.E.2d 1191;  cf., People v. Mott, 94 A.D.2d 415, 419, 465 N.Y.S.2d 307).

Contrary to the contention of defendant in his pro se supplemental brief, the evidence at trial, when viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Williams, 84 N.Y.2d 925, 926, 620 N.Y.S.2d 811, 644 N.E.2d 1367), is legally sufficient to support defendant's conviction (see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).   Finally, upon weighing the relative probative force of the conflicting testimony, we conclude that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v. Bleakley, supra, at 495, 515 N.Y.S.2d 761, 508 N.E.2d 672).

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: