People v. DinhPeople v. Dinh
The defendant‘s contentions that the prosecutor engaged in misconduct both while cross-examining him and during his summation are unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Williams, 8 NY3d 854, 855 [2007]; People v Booth, 265 AD2d 485, 486 [1999]). In any event, the complained-of questioning fell within the bounds of proper cross-examination (see People v Overlee, 236 AD2d 133, 138, 139 [1997]; People v Caicedo, 173 AD2d 630, 631 [1991]). Likewise, most of the prosecutor‘s summation constituted “fair comment upon the evidence or a fair response to the defense summation” (People v White, 5 AD3d 511, 511 [2004]), and any improper comments constituted harmless error (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 [1975]).
Dillon, J.P., Florio, Leventhal and Roman, JJ., concur.