People v. Ennis, 2003-06113.

• Decision Date: 23 May 2005
• Docket Number: 2003-06113.
• Citation: 794 N.Y.S.2d 912,2005 NY Slip Op 04241,18 A.D.3d 771
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOHN ENNIS, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

18 A.D.3d 771

794 N.Y.S.2d 912

2005 NY Slip Op 04241

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOHN ENNIS, Appellant.

2003-06113.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Second Department.

May 23, 2005.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Partnow, J.), rendered June 18, 2003, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the prosecutor's comments during summation constituted reversible error is, for the most part, unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Nuccie, 57 NY2d 818 [1982]; People v Medina, 53 NY2d 951, 953 [1981]). In any event, his contention is without merit. The prosecutor's comments were responsive to defense counsel's summation or constituted fair comment on the evidence (see People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105, 109-110 [1976]; People v Meyers, 13 AD3d 395 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 765 [2005]; People v Yu Feng Shi, 12 AD3d 541 [2004]; People v Doe, 11 AD3d 711 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 762 [2005]). The comment that the defendant objected to was stricken from the record, after which the defendant neither requested further curative instructions nor moved for a mistrial. Thus, the defendant indicated that the court had sufficiently cured any error to his satisfaction (see People v Simms, 222 AD2d 622 [1995]).

The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.

Schmidt, J.P., Santucci, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.