PEOPLE v. JOHNSON (2003)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Silverman, J.), rendered April 13, 1999, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 The court properly permitted the People to elicit testimony from a detective on redirect examination regarding the voucher numbers in his records.   During cross-examination, the defense counsel questioned the detective about a discrepancy between the voucher numbers in his paperwork.   This line of questioning afforded the People an opportunity to clarify and explain the discrepancy (see generally People v. Melendez, 55 N.Y.2d 445, 451, 449 N.Y.S.2d 946, 434 N.E.2d 1324;  People v. Johnson, 296 A.D.2d 422, 745 N.Y.S.2d 51, lv. denied 99 N.Y.2d 537, 752 N.Y.S.2d 597, 782 N.E.2d 575).

 Contrary to the defendant's contention, the comments made by the prosecutor during summation do not require reversal.   The alleged improper remarks were either a fair response to the defense counsel's summation (see People v. Stith, 291 A.D.2d 576, 737 N.Y.S.2d 881;  People v. Nelson, 288 A.D.2d 329, 733 N.Y.S.2d 618;  People v. Elliot, 216 A.D.2d 576, 628 N.Y.S.2d 761;  People v. Russo, 201 A.D.2d 512, 513, 607 N.Y.S.2d 413, affd. 85 N.Y.2d 872, 626 N.Y.S.2d 51, 649 N.E.2d 1195), or fair comment on the evidence and the inferences to be drawn therefrom (see People v. McHarris, 297 A.D.2d 824, 825, 748 N.Y.S.2d 57).