Summary
holding that defendant's objection to prosecutor's summation was not properly preserved by defendant's general objection
Summary of this case from Green v. LegoneyOpinion
Argued February 7, 1989
Decided March 23, 1989
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Irving Lang, J.
Mitchell J. Briskey and Philip L. Weinstein for appellant.
Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney (Joseph J. Dawson and Carol Gette of counsel), for respondent.
MEMORANDUM.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant's sole argument on appeal is that certain comments made by the prosecutor during summation violated his constitutional rights to equal protection and due process. When the comments were made, defendant made only a general objection. Thus, he failed to preserve his present argument for our review (see, People v Ford, 69 N.Y.2d 775, 776). We reject defendant's contention that the claimed error required no preservation as an error affecting "`the organization of the court or the mode of proceedings prescribed by law'" (People v Ahmed, 66 N.Y.2d 307, 310, quoting People v Patterson, 39 N.Y.2d 288, 295, affd 432 U.S. 197).
Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA concur.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.