gave a curative instruction in New York

2000In any event, the court gave a curative instruction, which the jury is presumed to have followed (see, People v Berg, 59 NY2d 294, 299-300 ; People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 ).

1999The reference was brief, there was no bad faith on the part of the prosecutor (People v Ortiz, 216 AD2d 164 , lv denied 86 NY2d 799 ), and the court gave a curative instruction, which the jury is presumed to have followed (see, People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 ).

2022Although the court reporter mistakenly included a leading question to which the County Court had sustained the defendant's objection and stricken from the record during a read back of certain testimony to the jury, the error was quickly discovered, and the court gave a curative instruction to the jury that it was not to consider the testimony ( see People v Breazil , 110 AD3d 913, 914 ).

2022The jury is presumed to have followed the court's instruction ( see People v Stone , 29 NY3d 166, 171 ).

2020Afterwards, the court gave a curative instruction to [*8]disregard the demonstration ( id. at 118 ).

2020The Court of Appeals found that upon learning of the court officer's "unauthorized" demonstration the trial court properly "took hold of the proceedings and summoned the lawyers to discuss the options" ( id. at 120 ).

2017In the latter, the court gave a curative instruction that appropriately addressed any alleged danger of prejudice from the other lawyer’s remarks (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865 [1981]).

2011Plaintiff failed to preserve his objections and the verdict should be reinstated (see Penn v Amchem Prods., 73 AD3d 493 [2010]; Wilson v City of New York, 65 AD3d 906 [2009]; Bennett v Wolf, 40 AD3d 274 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 818 [2008]; Smith v Au, 8 AD3d 1 [2004]).

2011Plaintiff failed to preserve his objections and the verdict should be reinstated (see Penn v Amchem Prods., 73 AD3d 493 [2010]; Wilson v City of New York, 65 AD3d 906 [2009]; Bennett v Wolf, 40 AD3d 274 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 818 [2008]; Smith v Au, 8 AD3d 1 [2004]).

2011Plaintiff failed to preserve his objections and the verdict should be reinstated (see Penn v Amchem Prods., 73 AD3d 493 [2010]; Wilson v City of New York, 65 AD3d 906 [2009]; Bennett v Wolf, 40 AD3d 274 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 818 [2008]; Smith v Au, 8 AD3d 1 [2004]).

2011Plaintiff failed to preserve his objections and the verdict should be reinstated (see Penn v Amchem Prods., 73 AD3d 493 [2010]; Wilson v City of New York, 65 AD3d 906 [2009]; Bennett v Wolf, 40 AD3d 274 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 818 [2008]; Smith v Au, 8 AD3d 1 [2004]).

2009Contrary to the further contention of defendant, Supreme Court (Deborah A. Haendiges, J.) did not err in denying his motion for a mistrial based upon the victim’s testimony, which defendant characterizes as a reference to an “uncharged sexual incident.” The record establishes that the victim made no reference to forcible compulsion by defendant and, in any event, the court gave a curative instruction that the jury is presumed to have followed (see People v Cruz, 272 AD2d 922 , 923 [2000], affd 96 NY2d 857 [2001]).

2009Contrary to the further contention of defendant, Supreme Court (Deborah A. Haendiges, J.) did not err in denying his motion for a mistrial based upon the victim’s testimony, which defendant characterizes as a reference to an “uncharged sexual incident.” The record establishes that the victim made no reference to forcible compulsion by defendant and, in any event, the court gave a curative instruction that the jury is presumed to have followed (see People v Cruz, 272 AD2d 922 , 923 [2000], affd 96 NY2d 857 [2001]).

2008Thus, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s motion for a mistrial (see generally People v Toland, 2 AD3d 1053, 1055 [2003], lv denied 2 NY3d 808 [2004]).

2003We further reject defendants’ contention that comments made by plaintiffs’ counsel on summation concerning defendants’ failure to call any expert witnesses were improper; the remarks were fair comment in response to remarks by defense counsel (see Boshnakov v Board of Educ. of Town of Eden, 277 AD2d 996 [2000], lv denied 96 NY2d 703 [2001] ).

2003In any event, in response to defendants’ belated objection after summations were completed, the court gave a curative instruction alleviating any possible prejudice (see Blanar v Dickinson, 296 AD2d 431 [2002]; Bacigalupo v Heathshield, Inc., 231 AD2d 538, 539 [1996]).

2000Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention in his pro se supplemental brief that his trial should have been severed from that of codefendants (see, People v Crutchfield, 134 AD2d 508, 509 , lv denied 71 NY2d 894 ).

2000In any event, the court gave a curative instruction, which the jury is presumed to have followed (see, People v Berg, 59 NY2d 294, 299-300 ; People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 ).

1999Since defendant testified as to an alibi, he was not deprived of a fair trial when the prosecutor commented on his failure to call as witnesses any of the persons he claimed to have been with at the time of the crime (People v Tankleff, 84 NY2d 992, 994-995 ).

1999The reference was brief, there was no bad faith on the part of the prosecutor (People v Ortiz, 216 AD2d 164 , lv denied 86 NY2d 799 ), and the court gave a curative instruction, which the jury is presumed to have followed (see, People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 ).

1997"Under these circumstances, the curative instructions must be deemed to have corrected the error to the defendant’s satisfaction” (People v Heide, 84 NY2d 943, 944 ).

1990In any event, wé have examined the comments, and were we to consider the issue, we would find the comments not objectionable and constituting fair comment on the facts, and fair response to the arguments made by defense counsel on summation (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 400 ).

1990Defendant concedes that, with one exception, as to which the court gave a curative instruction, the comments were not preserved for appellate review by specific objection (People v Balls, 69 NY2d 641 ), and we decline to reach the issue in the interest of justice.

1989We have reviewed the remaining claims of error raised by defendant and find them to be either unpreserved (see, CPL 470.05 [2]) or harmless (see, People v Johnson, 57 NY2d 969 ; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 241-242 ).