Opinion
January 19, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, Joan Sudolnik, J., Charles Tejada, J.
The People met their burden of proving that defendant's statements were knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily made (People v. Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 72). Under the totality of the circumstances, the strategy employed by the police in asserting that defendant's companion might be arrested and their children sent to the Bureau of Child Welfare was not so fundamentally unfair as to deny due process or likely to induce a false confession (People v. Tarsia, 50 N.Y.2d 1, 11; People v. Anderson, 42 N.Y.2d 35), since the police had a factual basis for making such statement.
Most of defendant's current objections to the prosecutor's summation have not been preserved for appellate review by appropriate objection (CPL 470.05) and we decline to reach them in the interest of justice. The remaining objections were sustained by the trial court and appropriate instructions were provided. Since defendant did not object further nor did he request additional instructions, his arguments have not been preserved for review.
Since defense counsel did not object to the prosecutor's opening statement, the prosecutor was deprived of an opportunity to correct any purported deficiencies (People v. Kurtz, 51 N.Y.2d 380, cert denied 451 U.S. 911). In any event, the opening sufficiently satisfied the requirements of CPL 260.30 (3).
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Asch, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.