The People, etc., respondent, v. Chris Terry, appellant. (2014)

Submitted—October 16, 2014

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Reichbach, J.), rendered April 5, 2011, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.   Moreover, in fulfilling our responsibility to conduct an independent review of the weight of the evidence (see People v. Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 348), we nevertheless accord great deference to the factfinder's opportunity to view the witnesses, hear the testimony, and observe demeanor (see People v. Mateo, 2 NY3d 383;  People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495).   Upon reviewing the record here, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v. Romero, 7 NY3d 633).

The defendant's contention that certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation were improper is unpreserved for appellate review.   Defense counsel either did not object to the remarks at issue or made only a general objection (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Tonge, 93 N.Y.2d 838, 839–840;  People v. Rios, 105 AD3d 873;  People v. Kennedy, 101 AD3d 1045, 1046).   In any event, the contention is without merit, as the remarks were within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing arguments, fair response to arguments made by defense counsel in summation, fair comment upon the evidence, or otherwise did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v. Bailey, 58 N.Y.2d 272, 277;  People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 400;  People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 109;  People v. Rios, 105 AD3d at 873;  People v. Kennedy, 101 AD3d at 1045).

The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court improperly permitted Police Officer Dennis Steele to testify that he recognized the defendant from a “wanted” poster is waived, as the defense had elicited the same testimony on cross-examination (see People v. Jean, 117 AD3d 875, 878;  People v. Stalter, 77 AD3d 776, 777;  People v. Grant, 54 AD3d 967).   The defendant's contention that the testimony of Officer Steele, Detective William Puskas, and Detective Frank Micelli improperly bolstered the complainant's identification of him is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2];  People v. Bevans, 84 AD3d 827;  People v. Melendez, 51 AD3d 1040, 1041;  People v. Sealy, 35 AD3d 510).   In any event, the testimony of Officer Steele and Detective Puskas was properly admitted “to explain police actions and the sequence of events leading to the defendant's arrest” (People v. Amaya, 103 AD3d 907, 908;  see People v. Bernardez, 85 AD3d 936, 938;  People v. Walker, 70 AD3d 870, 871), while the testimony of Detective Micelli was properly admitted to enable the jury to evaluate whether the complainant had sufficient opportunity to observe the crime in order to report an accurate description of the perpetrator to the police (see People v. Huertas, 75 N.Y.2d 487, 493;  People v. Bryan, 50 AD3d 1049, 1051).

The defendant received the effective assistance of counsel (see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 688, 694;  People v. Caban, 5 NY3d 143, 152;  People v. Stultz, 2 NY3d 277, 283).   Defense counsel was not ineffective for failing to make arguments or motions that had little or no chance of success (see People v. Caban, 5 NY3d at 152;  People v. Stultz, 2 NY3d at 287).

DILLON, J.P., CHAMBERS, COHEN and MALTESE, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court