People v. Crawford

• Decision Date: 18 May 1987
• Citation: 515 N.Y.S.2d 604,130 A.D.2d 678
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Anthony CRAWFORD, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 604

515 N.Y.S.2d 604

130 A.D.2d 678

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Anthony CRAWFORD, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department.

May 18, 1987.

Delukey & Shapiro, P.C., Brooklyn (Stanley Shapiro, of counsel), for appellant.

Elizabeth Holtzman, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood, Anthea H. Bruffee and Karen L. Kramer, of counsel), for respondent.

Before BRACKEN, J.P., and NIEHOFF, KOOPER and SULLIVAN, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Owens, J.), rendered March 28, 1980, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED, that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant did not object to the comments made by the prosecutor on summation and, therefore, no error of law was preserved for appellate review (see, People v. Nucci, 57 N.Y.2d 818, 455 N.Y.S.2d 593, 441 N.E.2d 1111). In any event, the prosecutor's remarks concerning the credibility of his witnesses were a fair response to the defense summation which suggested that the People's witnesses had manufactured their story (see, People v. Oakley, 114 A.D.2d 473, 494 N.Y.S.2d 383; People v. Marks, 6 N.Y.2d 67, 188 N.Y.S.2d 465, 160 N.E.2d 26, cert. denied 362 U.S. 912, 80 S.Ct. 662, 4 L.Ed.2d 620; cf. People v. Stewart, 92 A.D.2d 226, 229, 230-231, 459 N.Y.S.2d 853). Moreover, these remarks were a proper comment since the issue of credibility was central to the trial (see, People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 383 N.Y.S.2d 204, 347 N.E.2d 564; People v. Oakley, supra ).