Opinion
June 29, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ferdinand, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that allegedly improper remarks made by the prosecutor during summation constituted reversible error. However, the challenges to most of the comments have not been preserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Balls, 69 N.Y.2d 641; People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951). The few remarks which have been adequately preserved constituted fair comment on the evidence in the case ( see generally, People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105; People v. Farrell, 228 A.D.2d 693), as well as permissible responses to the summation of the defense counsel ( see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396; People v. Farrell, supra).
The defendant similarly has failed to preserve for appellate review his claims that the court's marshaling of the evidence and its identification charge unfairly prejudiced him, since he did not challenge the propriety of the charge on the specific grounds which he now asserts ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Bacchus, 183 A.D.2d 720; People v. Stratton, 182 A.D.2d 847).
The court did not err in imposing consecutive sentences for two of the robberies of which the defendant was convicted. While the robberies were part of the same extended criminal transaction, the two robberies at issue involved separate acts of taking property from the respective victims ( see generally, People v. Ramirez, 89 N.Y.2d 444; People v. Brown, 80 N.Y.2d 361; People v. Hill, 245 A.D.2d 464; People v. Phillips, 208 A.D.2d 656). Concurrent sentences were not mandated because the robberies were not committed through a single act, nor was the robbery of one victim a material element of the robbery of the other ( see, Penal Law § 70.25; People v. Truesdell, 70 N.Y.2d 809; People v. Diaz, 210 A.D.2d 248).
Sullivan, J. P., Pizzuto, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.