Opinion
March 12, 1990
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The testimony of three eyewitnesses established that the defendant tried to pry open the window of a dwelling, and it is uncontroverted that he had no permission to do so. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt is not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
With respect to the prosecutor's summation, we note that the remarks made by the prosecutor were not objected to at trial, and therefore, any issues with respect thereto are not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Nuccie, 57 N.Y.2d 818; People v Brown, 158 A.D.2d 461; People v Winfield, 154 A.D.2d 725; People v Boyajian, 148 A.D.2d 740; People v Crawford, 130 A.D.2d 678). In any event, the prosecutor's remarks were a fair response to the defense counsel's summation (see, People v Sykes, 151 A.D.2d 523, 524), and as such, the defendant's argument is without merit (see, People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396).
Finally, we conclude that the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.