Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Courtney Hermonstyne, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2000-06-19
Citations: 273 A.D.2d 408
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Courtney Hermonstyne, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 273
Pages: 408–409

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Courtney Hermonstyne, Appellant.
[711 NYS2d 335]

Opinion:
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Cooperman, J.), rendered December 23, 1997, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's argument that he was prejudiced because of allegedly improper summation remarks by the prosecutor is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943; People v Elliot, 151 AD2d 498). In any event, the majority of the prosecutor's statements were either in response to comments made by defense counsel in his summation (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396), or they were a fair comment on the evidence (see, People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105). To the extent that, any of the prosecutor's comments constituted error, the Trial Judge acted promptly to remove any prejudicial effect caused thereby (see, People v Ashwal, supra). Moreover, any errors which may have occurred during the prosecutor's summation were harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230). Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Altman and Schmidt, JJ., concur.