PEOPLE v. DICK (2008)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered June 21, 2005, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, assault in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentencing.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

 The defendant's contention that the prosecutor's summation deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant failed to object or raised only general objections to the prosecutor's summation remarks (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Tonge, 93 N.Y.2d 838, 688 N.Y.S.2d 88, 710 N.E.2d 653;  People v. Almonte, 23 A.D.3d 392, 394, 806 N.Y.S.2d 95;  People v. Martinez, 17 A.D.3d 484, 485, 792 N.Y.S.2d 349).   In any event, most of the challenged remarks were fair comment on the evidence, permissible rhetorical comment, or responsive to the defense counsel's summation (see People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 109-110, 383 N.Y.S.2d 204, 347 N.E.2d 564;  People v. Carter, 36 A.D.3d 624, 831 N.Y.S.2d 87;  People v. Martinez, 17 A.D.3d at 485, 792 N.Y.S.2d 349;  People v. Rhodes, 11 A.D.3d 487, 488, 782 N.Y.S.2d 788;  People v. Valdes, 291 A.D.2d 513, 514, 738 N.Y.S.2d 223).  “To the extent that the prosecutor may have exceeded the bounds of permissible rhetorical comment, any error was harmless” (People v. Carter, 36 A.D.3d 624, 624, 831 N.Y.S.2d 87;  see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).