People v. Rudd

Decision Date05 May 2009
Docket Number2007-03349.
Citation62 A.D.3d 729,2009 NY Slip Op 03756,877 N.Y.S.2d 700
PartiesTHE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ALEX RUDD, Appellant.
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his challenges to the prosecutor's summation (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Tonge, 93 NY2d 838 [1999]; People v Forest, 52 AD3d 733 [2008]) and cross-examination (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Lewis, 48 AD3d 483 [2008]; People v Lawrence, 4 AD3d 436 [2004]). In any event, the challenged remarks in the prosecutor's summation did not rise to the level of reversible error, as they were either responsive to defense counsel's summation, constituted fair comment on the evidence or inferences drawn therefrom, or did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Meeks, 56 AD3d 800 [2008]; People v Forest, 52 AD3d 733 [2008]; People v Holguin, 284 AD2d 343 [2001]).

Moreover, the defendant's challenge to the prosecutor's cross-examination is without merit (see People v Lewis, 48 AD3d 483 [2008]; People v Hill, 47 AD3d 838 [2008]).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

SPOLZINO, J.P., DILLON, FLORIO and BELEN, JJ., concur.

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • People v. Kenneth West
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • July 12, 2011
    ...603, lv. denied 16 N.Y.3d 835, 921 N.Y.S.2d 199, 946 N.E.2d 187; People v. Cruz, 79 A.D.3d 1145, 913 N.Y.S.2d 329; People v. Rudd, 62 A.D.3d 729, 877 N.Y.S.2d 700). The defendant's contention that the trial court erred in precluding evidence of third-party culpability at trial is unpreserve......
  • People v. Mullings
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • April 12, 2011
    ...on the evidence or inferences drawn therefrom, or [were not so egregious as to] deprive the defendant of a fair trial” ( People v. Rudd, 62 A.D.3d 729, 877 N.Y.S.2d 700; see People v. Banks, 74 A.D.3d at 1215, 905 N.Y.S.2d 627; People v. Dorgan, 42 A.D.3d 505, 838 N.Y.S.2d 787). “The determ......
  • People v. Cruz
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 28, 2010
    ...see People v. Garcia, 66 A.D.3d 699, 700, 885 N.Y.S.2d 771, lv. denied 14 N.Y.3d 800, 899 N.Y.S.2d 134, 925 N.E.2d 938; People v. Rudd, 62 A.D.3d 729, 877 N.Y.S.2d 700). Moreover, the County Court properly instructed the jurors that they were the finders of fact, that the arguments of couns......
  • People v. Singh
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • September 25, 2013
    ...fair comment on the evidence or inferences drawn therefrom ( see People v. Banks, 74 A.D.3d at 1215, 905 N.Y.S.2d 627;People v. Rudd, 62 A.D.3d 729, 729, 877 N.Y.S.2d 700;People v. Dorgan, 42 A.D.3d 505, 838 N.Y.S.2d 787), or constituted harmless error ( see People v. Reddick, 65 N.Y.2d 835......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT