People v. Goodman, 190 A.D.2d 862 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1993). · Go Syfert
People v. Goodman, 190 A.D.2d 862 (N.Y. App. Div. 2d Dep't 1993). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
14 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Cited for
At page 862 � Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Egitto, J.), rendered November 6, 1991, convicting him of murder in the second…1 citing caseopening of page *862 (no citing court says what it cites this page for)
  • People v. Harper, 132 A.D.3d 1230 (N.Y. App. Div. 4th Dep't 2015). 2 cites
    In addition, by failing to object to the prosecutor’s summation, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was denied a fair trial when the prosecutor misstated the law concerning felony murder (see People v Waterf…
Other citing cases1 with no pin cite or quoted language on record
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Leonard Goodman
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 22, 1993.
190 A.D.2d 862
1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1589
Cited by 14 opinions  |  Published

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Egitto, J.), rendered November 6, 1991, convicting him of murder in the second degree, attempted robbery in the first degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the prosecutor’s misstatements of the law in summation constitute reversible error. However, the defendant failed to preserve his contention for appellate review, since the defendant either initially failed to object to the prosecutor’s comments which he challenges on appeal or failed to request curative instructions after the trial court sustained his objection (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951; People v Nunez, 184 AD2d 594; People v Burrell, 178 AD2d 422).

In any event, the defendant’s claim is without merit. During summation the prosecutor repeatedly stated that the defendant and the codefendant’s acts tended to effect the commission of a robbery. However, it cannot be said that the prose[*863] cutor’s comments deprived the defendant of a fair trial, since the prosecutor’s remarks were an accurate statement of the law (see, Penal Law § 110.00) and were a fair response to the comments by the defense counsel on summation (see, People v Hart, 176 AD2d 148). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.