PEOPLE v. LEE (2006)

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered July 15, 2004, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (three counts), and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review his claims that the prosecutor's summation remarks improperly vouched for the People's witnesses, misrepresented the defense position, and denigrated the defendant (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. Dien, 77 N.Y.2d 885, 568 N.Y.S.2d 899, 571 N.E.2d 69;  People v. Pierre, 30 A.D.3d 622, 818 N.Y.S.2d 139;  People v. Trinidad, 22 A.D.3d 612, 802 N.Y.S.2d 250;  People v. Armstrong, 122 A.D.2d 218, 504 N.Y.S.2d 752).   In any event, while portions of the prosecutor's summation were lamentable and went well beyond the bounds of proper advocacy and fair comment (see People v. Robinson, 260 A.D.2d 508, 689 N.Y.S.2d 163), they constituted harmless error in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 237, 367 N.Y.S.2d 213, 326 N.E.2d 787;  People v. Trinidad, supra;  People v. Dardain, 226 A.D.2d 551, 640 N.Y.S.2d 817;  People v. D'Alessandro, 184 A.D.2d 114, 591 N.Y.S.2d 1001;   People v. Roccaforte, 141 A.D.2d 775, 529 N.Y.S.2d 865).

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

The defendant's contention in point one of his brief, relating to the issue of whether his written statement to the police should have been redacted, does not require a new trial.

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.