Case Name: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Glen Cummins, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 2009-02-03
Citations: 59 A.D.3d 458
Docket Number: 
Parties: The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Glen Cummins, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 59
Pages: 458–459

Head Matter:
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Glen Cummins, Appellant.
[872 NYS2d 532]

Opinion:
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.), rendered April 28, 2006, convicting him of murder in the second degree, burglary in the first degree, and intimidating a witness in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that he was denied a fair trial by certain remarks made by the prosecutor during summation is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]). The defendant either failed to raise any objection to the challenged remarks, voiced only general objections, or failed to seek further relief after objections were sustained and curative instructions given (see People v Crawford, 54 AD3d 961, 962 [2008]; People v Boyce, 54 AD3d 1052 [2008]; People v Kanios, 53 AD3d 555 [2008]; People v Brown, 48 AD3d 590 [2008]). In any event, the challenged remarks were either fair response to the defense summation or fair comment on the evidence (see People v Ashwal, 39 NY2d 105 [1976]; People v Crawford, 54 AD3d 961, 962 [2008]; People v Boyce, 54 AD3d 1052 [2008]; People v Friel, 53 AD3d 667 [2008]; People v Brown, 48 AD3d 590 [2008]).
Viewing the totality of the evidence, the law, and the circumstances of the case, we find that the defendant's trial counsel provided meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712-713 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147-148 [1981]; People v Robinson, 55 AD3d 636 [2008]; People v Biscombe, 54 AD3d 1051 [2008]).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Udzinski, 146 AD2d 245 [1989]). Rivera, J.P., Angiolillo, Eng and Belen, JJ., concur.