Opinion
July 14, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
The defendant, by objecting to portions of the prosecutrix's summation during his trial, properly preserved the issue of the propriety of her summation for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05). Although it is generally impermissible for a prosecutrix to buttress the credibility of the People's witnesses (People v Blackman, 88 A.D.2d 620, 621; see also, People v Shanis, 36 N.Y.2d 697, 699; People v Ricchiuti, 93 A.D.2d 842), she may respond to remarks made by a defense counsel in summation (People v Carter, 113 A.D.2d 949, 950) and, therefore, a prosecutrix's summation should be evaluated in comparison to that of the defense (People v Blackman, supra, p 621).
Some remarks made by a prosecutrix which might otherwise be seen as exceeding the bounds of permissible rhetorical comment will be judged as not unreasonable, particularly where the defense questions the veracity of the People's witnesses (see, People v Lafayette, 118 A.D.2d 593; People v Payne, 111 A.D.2d 938; People v Blackman, supra; cf. People v Mitchell, 114 A.D.2d 978). Here, the defendant's attorney questioned the credibility of three of the People's witnesses. In light of the nature of the statements made by both attorneys in their summations, the comments made by the prosecutrix in her summation were not unreasonable and did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial.
In view of the defendant's failure to object to the alibi charge, the strong evidence of the defendant's guilt and the fact that the trial court's charge as a whole properly instructed the jury that the prosecution bore the burden of proof, there is no need to consider the issue concerning that charge in the interest of justice (see, People v Victor, 62 N.Y.2d 374; People v Moya, 115 A.D.2d 769; People v Beckles, 115 A.D.2d 749; People v Payne, supra, p 939). Mangano, J.P., Gibbons, Bracken and Spatt, JJ., concur.