immediate curative instruction in New York

2010Thus, “the curative instruction ‘must be deemed to have corrected [any] error to the defendant’s satisfaction’ ” (People v Sweeney, 15 AD3d 917, 917 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 891 [2005], quoting People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]).

2008Thus, the court’s curative instruction “must be deemed to have corrected [any] error to the defendant’s satisfaction” (People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]; see People v Williams, 28 AD3d 1059 , 1061 [2006], affd 8 NY3d 854 [2007]).

2003This was sufficient to protect the defendant’s rights (see People v Hayden, supra at 368; see also People v Butcher, 244 AD2d 499 , 500).

2002This was sufficient to protect the defendant’s rights (see People v Hayden, supra at 368; see also People v Dutcher, 244 AD2d 499, 500 ).

2003This was sufficient to protect the defendant’s rights (see People v Hayden, supra at 368; see also People v Butcher, 244 AD2d 499 , 500).

2002This was sufficient to protect the defendant’s rights (see People v Hayden, supra at 368; see also People v Dutcher, 244 AD2d 499, 500 ).

2019Additionally, the further challenged comments made by the prosecutor during summation were within "the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible during summation" ( People v McEathron , 86 AD3d 915, 916 [4th Dept 2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 975 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Jones , 155 AD3d 1547, 1548 [4th Dept 2017], amended on rearg 156 AD3d 1493 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 32 NY3d 1205 [2019]).

2019While it was improper for the prosecutor to discuss her own personal experiences as a child during summation ( see generally People v Grice , 100 AD2d 419, 422 [4th Dept 1984]), the court immediately interjected and told the prosecutor that her conduct was improper and that the jury should "[d]isregard it." Under these circumstances, the prosecutor's isolated comment, which was met with an immediate curative instruction, was not so egregious as to deprive defendant of a fair trial ( see People v Greene , 13 AD3d 991, 993 [3d Dept 2004], lv denied 5 NY3d 789 [2005]).

2019Additionally, the further challenged comments made by the prosecutor during summation were within "the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible during summation" ( People v McEathron , 86 AD3d 915, 916 [4th Dept 2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 975 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Jones , 155 AD3d 1547, 1548 [4th Dept 2017], amended on rearg 156 AD3d 1493 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 32 NY3d 1205 [2019]).

2019Importantly, "[s]ummations are rarely perfect . . . [and] not every improper comment made by the prosecuting attorney during the course of closing arguments warrants reversal of the underlying conviction" ( People v Forbes , 111 AD3d 1154, 1160 [2013]).

2019While it was improper for the prosecutor to discuss her own personal experiences as a child during summation ( see generally People v Grice , 100 AD2d 419, 422 [4th Dept 1984]), the court immediately interjected and told the prosecutor that her conduct was improper and that the jury should "[d]isregard it." Under these circumstances, the prosecutor's isolated comment, which was met with an immediate curative instruction, was not so egregious as to deprive defendant of a fair trial ( see People v Greene , 13 AD3d 991, 993 [3d Dept 2004], lv denied 5 NY3d 789 [2005]).

2019Additionally, the further challenged comments made by the prosecutor during summation were within "the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible during summation" ( People v McEathron , 86 AD3d 915, 916 [4th Dept 2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 975 [2012] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Jones , 155 AD3d 1547, 1548 [4th Dept 2017], amended on rearg 156 AD3d 1493 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 32 NY3d 1205 [2019]).

2015Defendant’s claim that County Court failed to administer the oath of truthfulness required by CPL 270.15 (1) (a) to the potential jurors is not preserved for our review, as it must be (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v McDade, 64 AD3d 884, 888 [2009], affd 14 NY3d 760 [2010]; People v Hampton, 64 AD3d 872, 877 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 796 [2009]; compare People v Hoffler, 53 AD3d 116, 120-121 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 832 [2008]).

2015Although there was no evidence to support the prosecutor’s comment that defendant was a “ [s] talker,” and the comment that defense counsel was “play-ting] games” was inappropriate, defendant’s objections were sustained, County Court gave an immediate curative instruction to the jury regarding the stalker comment and the fleeting nature of these two comments do not reflect a “flagrant and pervasive pattern of prosecutorial misconduct” (People v Dickson, 58 AD3d at 1018 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v Story, 81 AD3d 1168, 1169 [2011]; People v Cardenas, 79 AD3d 125

2015While the references were improper (see People v Morris, 21 NY3d 588, 594 [2013]; People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350, 359 [1981]; People v Molineux, 168 NY 264, 293 [1901]), any prejudice to the defendant was mitigated when the court sustained the objection to the complainant’s statement and issued an immediate curative instruction to the jury, and by the court’s clear instructions, during opening remarks and in its charge to the jury, that “testimony that the Court has excluded or told you to disregard is not evidence and must not be considered” (see People v Townsend, 100 AD3d 1029, 1030 [201

2015Defendant’s claim that County Court failed to administer the oath of truthfulness required by CPL 270.15 (1) (a) to the potential jurors is not preserved for our review, as it must be (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v McDade, 64 AD3d 884, 888 [2009], affd 14 NY3d 760 [2010]; People v Hampton, 64 AD3d 872, 877 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 796 [2009]; compare People v Hoffler, 53 AD3d 116, 120-121 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 832 [2008]).

2015Defendant’s claim that County Court failed to administer the oath of truthfulness required by CPL 270.15 (1) (a) to the potential jurors is not preserved for our review, as it must be (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v McDade, 64 AD3d 884, 888 [2009], affd 14 NY3d 760 [2010]; People v Hampton, 64 AD3d 872, 877 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 796 [2009]; compare People v Hoffler, 53 AD3d 116, 120-121 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 832 [2008]).

2015Although there was no evidence to support the prosecutor’s comment that defendant was a “ [s] talker,” and the comment that defense counsel was “play-ting] games” was inappropriate, defendant’s objections were sustained, County Court gave an immediate curative instruction to the jury regarding the stalker comment and the fleeting nature of these two comments do not reflect a “flagrant and pervasive pattern of prosecutorial misconduct” (People v Dickson, 58 AD3d at 1018 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v Story, 81 AD3d 1168, 1169 [2011]; People v Cardenas, 79 AD3d 125

2015Although there was no evidence to support the prosecutor’s comment that defendant was a “ [s] talker,” and the comment that defense counsel was “play-ting] games” was inappropriate, defendant’s objections were sustained, County Court gave an immediate curative instruction to the jury regarding the stalker comment and the fleeting nature of these two comments do not reflect a “flagrant and pervasive pattern of prosecutorial misconduct” (People v Dickson, 58 AD3d at 1018 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]; see People v Story, 81 AD3d 1168, 1169 [2011]; People v Cardenas, 79 AD3d 125

2015Defendant’s claim that County Court failed to administer the oath of truthfulness required by CPL 270.15 (1) (a) to the potential jurors is not preserved for our review, as it must be (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v McDade, 64 AD3d 884, 888 [2009], affd 14 NY3d 760 [2010]; People v Hampton, 64 AD3d 872, 877 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 796 [2009]; compare People v Hoffler, 53 AD3d 116, 120-121 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 832 [2008]).

2015While the references were improper (see People v Morris, 21 NY3d 588, 594 [2013]; People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350, 359 [1981]; People v Molineux, 168 NY 264, 293 [1901]), any prejudice to the defendant was mitigated when the court sustained the objection to the complainant’s statement and issued an immediate curative instruction to the jury, and by the court’s clear instructions, during opening remarks and in its charge to the jury, that “testimony that the Court has excluded or told you to disregard is not evidence and must not be considered” (see People v Townsend, 100 AD3d 1029, 1030 [201

2015While the references were improper (see People v Morris, 21 NY3d 588, 594 [2013]; People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350, 359 [1981]; People v Molineux, 168 NY 264, 293 [1901]), any prejudice to the defendant was mitigated when the court sustained the objection to the complainant’s statement and issued an immediate curative instruction to the jury, and by the court’s clear instructions, during opening remarks and in its charge to the jury, that “testimony that the Court has excluded or told you to disregard is not evidence and must not be considered” (see People v Townsend, 100 AD3d 1029, 1030 [201

2015While the references were improper (see People v Morris, 21 NY3d 588, 594 [2013]; People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350, 359 [1981]; People v Molineux, 168 NY 264, 293 [1901]), any prejudice to the defendant was mitigated when the court sustained the objection to the complainant’s statement and issued an immediate curative instruction to the jury, and by the court’s clear instructions, during opening remarks and in its charge to the jury, that “testimony that the Court has excluded or told you to disregard is not evidence and must not be considered” (see People v Townsend, 100 AD3d 1029, 1030 [201

2015While the references were improper (see People v Morris, 21 NY3d 588, 594 [2013]; People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350, 359 [1981]; People v Molineux, 168 NY 264, 293 [1901]), any prejudice to the defendant was mitigated when the court sustained the objection to the complainant’s statement and issued an immediate curative instruction to the jury, and by the court’s clear instructions, during opening remarks and in its charge to the jury, that “testimony that the Court has excluded or told you to disregard is not evidence and must not be considered” (see People v Townsend, 100 AD3d 1029, 1030 [201

2015While the references were improper (see People v Morris, 21 NY3d 588, 594 [2013]; People v Ventimiglia, 52 NY2d 350, 359 [1981]; People v Molineux, 168 NY 264, 293 [1901]), any prejudice to the defendant was mitigated when the court sustained the objection to the complainant’s statement and issued an immediate curative instruction to the jury, and by the court’s clear instructions, during opening remarks and in its charge to the jury, that “testimony that the Court has excluded or told you to disregard is not evidence and must not be considered” (see People v Townsend, 100 AD3d 1029, 1030 [201

2010When the prosecutor asked what that phrase meant, the witness replied that it was “a gang-related . . . slur.” County Court sustained defendant’s objection and instructed the jury to disregard the phrase “gang-related.” Given the immediate curative instruction, we do not find that this incident was so prejudicial that defendant was denied a fair trial (see People v Bush, 75 AD3d 917, 919 [2010]), especially since the record does not support defendant’s claim that the response was elicited as a deliberate attempt to circumvent the court’s Molineux ruling precluding gang-related testimony.

2010Thus, “the curative instruction ‘must be deemed to have corrected [any] error to the defendant’s satisfaction’ ” (People v Sweeney, 15 AD3d 917, 917 [2005], lv denied 4 NY3d 891 [2005], quoting People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944 [1994]).