Opinion
June 8, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by several allegedly prejudicial remarks made by the prosecutor during summation is without merit. The record reveals that the issue of the propriety of two of the comments has not been preserved for appellate review as a matter of law, as the defendant sought neither a curative instruction nor a mistrial after his objections to these statements were sustained (see, People v Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951; People v Ayala, 120 A.D.2d 600, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 755). In any event, we conclude that the several challenged remarks, when evaluated in the context of the defense summation (see, People v Marks, 6 N.Y.2d 67, cert denied 362 U.S. 912; People v Pearson, 118 A.D.2d 737, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 1055), "did not exceed the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing argument" (People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 399).
Additionally, we find unpersuasive the defendant's contention that the sentence he received was unduly harsh and excessive. The record reveals that the court was fully aware of the factors relevant to a sentencing determination, including the defendant's age and family background, his prior convictions for drug-related offenses, and the serious nature of the instant crimes; hence, we discern no error in the imposition of the challenged sentence (see, People v Pedraza, 66 N.Y.2d 626; People v Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302; People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Lawrence and Spatt, JJ., concur.