Opinion
April 9, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J.).
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People ( People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), it was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of murder in the second degree. Upon an independent review of the facts, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).
Defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by the prosecutor's cross-examination of him is without merit. At no time was defendant asked to characterize the People's witnesses as "liars" or as "lying", but rather was asked whether their testimony, which contradicted his own, was not "true" ( compare, People v. Thompson, 220 A.D.2d 239, with People v. Kim, 209 A.D.2d 167, and People v. Ortiz, 207 A.D.2d 279, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 909). Since none of the currently challenged comments of the prosecutor during summation were objected to at trial, any error in this regard has not been preserved for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05; People v. Balls, 69 N.Y.2d 641). Review in the interest of justice is not warranted since the comments fell within "`the four corners of the evidence'" ( People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 109), and constituted a proper response to defense counsel's summation in which he attacked the credibility of the prosecution witnesses ( People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396). Moreover, the prosecutor did not shift the burden of proof by commenting on defendant's failure to call a material witness, where defendant presented evidence at trial ( People v Tankleff, 84 N.Y.2d 992).
The trial court properly denied defendant's motion to vacate the judgment of conviction without a hearing since he failed to demonstrate that the facts sought to be established were material and would entitle him to relief ( People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796, 799). Defendant's allegations failed to support a claim of ineffective assistance. Specifically, there is no showing, other than speculation, that if counsel had held further interviews with defendant, or had hired or sought the appointment of an investigator, that this could have had any effect on the outcome of the trial.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Milonas, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.