February 19, 1985 Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County, Nicholas Tsoucalas, J. William E. Hellerstein ( Robin Nichinsky of counsel), for appellant. John J. Santucci, District Attorney ( Merri Turk Lasky of counsel), for respondent. Per Curiam. The core question dividing us is whether the trial prosecutor's remarks in summation, which were patently improper and which we unequivocally condemn, entitle the defendant to a new trial. A review of the record convinces the majority of us that reversal
Decided July 2, 1985 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Second Judicial Department, Nicholas Tsoucalas, J. Robin J. Nichinsky and William E. Hellerstein for appellant. John J. Santucci, District Attorney ( Jeanette Lifschitz of counsel), for respondent. On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.4), order affirmed for the reasons stated in the Per Curiam opinion at the Appellate Division ( 107 A.D.2d 35). Concur: