Opinion
February 1, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Meyerson, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
With respect to the defendant's claim that the trial court improperly interjected itself into the proceedings, it must be initially noted that the defendant did not preserve this issue for appellate review, since he failed to apprise the court of its allegedly prejudicial conduct or to move for a mistrial (see, People v Charleston, 56 N.Y.2d 886; CPL 470.05). In any event, the record indicates that the trial court only intervened to the extent of clarifying the testimony and ensuring that the jury heard and understood the evidence presented. The role of the Trial Judge is "neither that of automaton nor advocate" and his function is to clarify the issues and to facilitate the orderly and expeditious progress of the proceedings (see, People v Yut Wai Tom, 53 N.Y.2d 44, 56; People v De Jesus, 42 N.Y.2d 519; People v Hinton, 31 N.Y.2d 71, cert denied 410 U.S. 911). In the instant case, the record reveals that the trial court's conduct was proper.
Turning to the numerous claims of prejudicial error in the prosecutrix's summation, an examination of the record fails to support the defendant's claim that the summation deprived him of a fair trial. Although summation is not an unbridled debate, it is the right of counsel to comment on every pertinent matter of fact bearing upon the questions which must be decided by the jury as long as it is limited to the four corners of the evidence (see, People v Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105). With respect to two statements contained within the summation, that "a trial is not a search for a reasonable doubt" and "it is outrageous to let this man on the street", the court immediately took curative action to ameliorate the prejudicial effects of these remarks. The other statements, now claimed as error by the defendant, were unpreserved for appellate review or were fair comment. The scrutiny of the summations of both counsel indicate that the People's summation was not so prejudicial so as to warrant reversal (see, People v Roopchand, 65 N.Y.2d 837; People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396; People v Singleton, 121 A.D.2d 752, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 918). Thompson, J.P., Rubin, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.