Opinion
May 11, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
On the instant appeal, the defendant argues that the improper remarks of the prosecutor during his summation constituted reversible error. We disagree.
There were a few isolated instances during the prosecutor's summation where the prosecutor exceeded the "bounds of legitimate advocacy" by criticizing the defense counsel's strategy and by vouching for the credibility of a People's witness (see, People v. Shanis, 36 N.Y.2d 697, 699; People v. Hicks, 102 A.D.2d 173; People v. Ricchiuti, 93 A.D.2d 842). We deplore these comments and caution the prosecutor to refrain from them in the future. Nevertheless, a reversal of the defendant's judgment of conviction is not warranted since (1) for the most part the prosecutor's summation constituted fair comment on the evidence, including the defendant's agency defense (People v. Heffron, 59 A.D.2d 263), and (2) the proof of the defendant's guilt was overwhelming.
We have examined the defendant's remaining argument, i.e., that the sentence imposed upon him was excessive, and find it to be without merit (Penal Law § 220.39, 220.16 Penal, 70.00 Penal [2] [b]; [3] [b]). Mangano, J.P., Niehoff, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.