People v. Torres

• Decision Date: 01 May 1989
• Citation: 150 A.D.2d 406,543 N.Y.S.2d 313
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Hector TORRES, a/k/a George Romero, Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 313

543 N.Y.S.2d 313

150 A.D.2d 406

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Hector TORRES, a/k/a George Romero, Appellant.

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

May 1, 1989

Philip L. Weinstein, New York City, (Robert S. Dean, of counsel), for appellant. John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (Deborah Carlin Stevens, of counsel; Stephanie Schwartz, on the brief), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Farlo, J.), rendered March 27, 1987, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. We find unpersuasive the defendant's contention that he was denied a fair trial by the prosecutor's remarks on summation. While some of those remarks would have been better left unsaid (see generally, People v. Robinson, 123 A.D.2d 796, 507 N.Y.S.2d 268), they were not so prejudicial as to warrant reversal, especially when considered in conjunction with the trial court's curative instructions and the overwhelming proof of the defendant's guilt (see, e.g., People v. Oliver, 139 A.D.2d 536, 526 N.Y.S.2d 802; People v. Forgione, 134 A.D.2d 514, 521 N.Y.S.2d 101). We perceive no basis for disturbing the sentence imposed upon the defendant, as the record demonstrates that the court properly considered the relevant factors in rendering its sentencing determination, and the challenged sentence is neither unduly harsh nor excessive (see, e.g., People v. Pedraza, 66 N.Y.2d 626, 495 N.Y.S.2d 30, 485 N.E.2d 237; People v. Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302, 437 N.Y.S.2d 961, 419 N.E.2d 864; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

BROWN, J.P., and LAWRENCE, EIBER and SULLIVAN, JJ., concur.