PEOPLE v. McGEE (2005)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Latella, J.), rendered June 25, 2003, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 The defendant contends that the trial court erred in allowing the prosecutor to question his alibi witnesses about their failure to come forward with exculpatory information without laying the proper foundation pursuant to People v. Dawson, 50 N.Y.2d 311, 428 N.Y.S.2d 914, 406 N.E.2d 771.   That issue was not preserved for appellate review by an appropriate, specific objection (see People v. Miller, 89 N.Y.2d 1077, 659 N.Y.S.2d 837, 681 N.E.2d 1283;  People v. Lazarini, 270 A.D.2d 361, 704 N.Y.S.2d 870).   In any event, any error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see People v. Ayala, 75 N.Y.2d 422, 554 N.Y.S.2d 412, 553 N.E.2d 960;  People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787;  People v. Brown, 215 A.D.2d 492, 627 N.Y.S.2d 564).

The defendant's contention that he is entitled to a new trial because of improper remarks made by the prosecutor on summation is similarly unpreserved for appellate review.   In any event, any errors were harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see People v. Crimmins, supra ).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court properly refused to charge the jury as to temporary innocent possession (see People v. Hawkins, 258 A.D.2d 472, 685 N.Y.S.2d 253).