Case ID: ny-2d_93/html/0838-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

[710 NE2d 653, 688 NYS2d 88]
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Vere Tonge, Appellant.
    Decided February 23, 1999
    
      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
    
      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.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

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 NY2d 885, 886; People v Tevaha, 84 NY2d 879, 881; People v Ford, 69 NY2d 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 NY2d 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.