Skip navigation


93 N.Y.2d 838, 710 N.E.2d 653, 688 N.Y.S.2d 88 (1999).
February 23, 1999

1 No. 90 SSM 2

[99 NY Int. 0029]
Decided February 23, 1999

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports.

Submitted by Benjamin C. Gilbert Bair, for appellant.
Submitted by Karen Heiss Eisen, for respondent.


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'sfailure 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, 712–713).

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules, order affirmed, in a memorandum. Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur.

Decided February 23, 1999