noting that failure to specify the basis for a general objection to a remark on summation leaves the argument unpreservedSummary of this case from Dunn v. Sears
Decided February 23, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court (Bruce Allen, J.).
Cravath, Swaine Moore, New York City ( Benjamin C. Gilbert Bair of counsel), Susan J. Abraham and Richard M. Greenberg for appellant.
Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney of New York County. New York City ( Karen Heiss Eisen of counsel), for respondent.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant's claim that he was deprived of his right to a fair trial because the prosecutor stated in her summation that his conduct fit the "typical behavior of a sex offender" is unpreserved for our review. Defense counsel made only a general objection to the prosecutor's remark at summation; a party's failure to specify the basis for a general objection renders the argument unpreserved for this Court's review ( see, People v. Dien, 77 N.Y.2d 885, 886; People v. Tevaha, 84 N.Y.2d 879, 881; People v. Ford, 69 N.Y.2d 775, 776). Defendant also argues that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at trial. Defendant asserts that defense counsel failed to object to other improper remarks by the prosecutor during summation. Viewed as a whole, however, defense counsel's efforts reflect "a reasonable and legitimate strategy under the circumstances and evidence presented" ( People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713).
Chief Judge KAYE and Judges BELLACOSA, SMITH, LEVINE, CIPARICK, WESLEY and ROSENBLATT concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals ( 22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.