People v. Bridges

• Decision Date: 26 February 2014
• Citation: 2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 01336,114 A.D.3d 960,980 N.Y.S.2d 820
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Isaiah BRIDGES, appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

114 A.D.3d 960
980 N.Y.S.2d 820
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 01336

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent,
v.
Isaiah BRIDGES, appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Feb. 26, 2014.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Melissa S. Horlick of counsel), for appellant.

Kenneth P. Thompson, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Ann Bordley, and Claibourne I. Henry of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.), rendered November 29, 2010, convicting him of criminal sexual act in the first degree (two counts), burglary in the second degree, and petit larceny, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by improper remarks made by the prosecutor during summation is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v. Santos, 105 A.D.3d 1064, 1065, 963 N.Y.S.2d 380). In any event, the challenged remarks were fair comment on the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom or responsive to defense counsel's summation ( see People v. Bryant, 39 A.D.3d 768, 769, 834 N.Y.S.2d 305;People v. Siriani, 27 A.D.3d 670, 811 N.Y.S.2d 127).

Defense counsel's failure to object to certain of the prosecutor's challenged remarks during summation did not deprive the defendant of the effective assistance of counsel under the New York Constitution ( see People v. Floyd, 97 A.D.3d 837, 838, 948 N.Y.S.2d 683;People v. Anderson, 24 A.D.3d 460, 805 N.Y.S.2d 655), or under the United States Constitution ( see Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674).

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

The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.

RIVERA, J.P., HALL, ROMAN and MILLER, JJ., concur.