prompt curative instruction in New York

2013The jury is presumed to have followed the court’s prompt curative instruction, as well as its other instructions to draw no unfavorable inference from Haggerty’s failure to testify (see People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]).

2013The jury is presumed to have followed the court’s prompt curative instruction, as well as its other instructions to draw no unfavorable inference from Haggerty’s failure to testify (see People v Davis, 58 NY2d 1102, 1104 [1983]).

2007Viewing this brief comment in light of the entire testimony, the court mitigated any prejudice by striking the answer and providing a prompt curative instruction (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]; People v Durant, 6 AD3d 938, 941 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 639 [2004]; People v Birdsall, supra at 880 ; People v Nagi, 153 AD2d 964, 964-965 [1989]).

2005Any prejudice caused by the complainant’s brief allusion to the defendant’s custodial status was alleviated by the trial court’s prompt curative instruction to the jury (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]; People v Sokolov, 233 AD2d 345, 345-346 [1996]; People v Lockhart, 220 AD2d 690, 691 [1995]; People v Moore, 148 AD2d 754, 755 [1989]).

2015Even assuming, arguendo, that some of the prosecutor’s remarks were improper, we conclude that they were not so egregious as to deprive defendant of a fair trial, and any prejudice was alleviated by the court’s prompt curative instruction and its later instruction that the jury “may not consider sympathy” (People v Melendez, 11 AD3d 983, 984 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 888 [2005]; see People v Riley, 117 AD3d 1495, 1496 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1088 [2014]).

2015Even assuming, arguendo, that some of the prosecutor’s remarks were improper, we conclude that they were not so egregious as to deprive defendant of a fair trial, and any prejudice was alleviated by the court’s prompt curative instruction and its later instruction that the jury “may not consider sympathy” (People v Melendez, 11 AD3d 983, 984 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 888 [2005]; see People v Riley, 117 AD3d 1495, 1496 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1088 [2014]).

2012Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his mo tion for a mistrial following testimony from Detective Rhoderick Barrett that, during the course of the investigation, he “went through some of the old burglary cases.” The Supreme Court sustained defense counsel’s immediate objection, struck the statement, and gave a prompt curative instruction, which was sufficient to alleviate any prejudice (see People v Hicks, 84 AD3d 1402, 1402-1403 [2011]; People v Brescia, 41 AD3d 613, 613-614 [2007]).

2012Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his mo tion for a mistrial following testimony from Detective Rhoderick Barrett that, during the course of the investigation, he “went through some of the old burglary cases.” The Supreme Court sustained defense counsel’s immediate objection, struck the statement, and gave a prompt curative instruction, which was sufficient to alleviate any prejudice (see People v Hicks, 84 AD3d 1402, 1402-1403 [2011]; People v Brescia, 41 AD3d 613, 613-614 [2007]).

1995Although we agree that it was improper for the court to inform the prospective jurors that the defendant might testify and call witnesses (see, People v Boyd, 74 AD2d 647 , affd 53 NY2d 912 ), the error was harmless in view of the court’s prompt curative instruction, the fact that the defendant did testify, and the overwhelming evidence of his guilt (see, People v Boyd, supra; People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230 ).

1986However, in view of the prompt curative instruction given to the jury, the overwhelming evidence of the defendants’ guilt, the fact that the defendants’ attorneys stated in their openings that the defendants would testify and the fact that both the defendants ultimately did testify, we find the error to be harmless (see, People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230, 237 ; People v Alexander, 64 AD2d 668 ; People v Bates, 58 AD2d 838 ; People v Krische, 50 AD2d 872 ).

2010Additionally, although defendant declined Supreme Court’s offer of a prompt curative instruction, the court struck the responses and later instructed the jury to disregard all stricken testimony, alleviating any prejudice to defendant (see People v Young, 48 NY2d 995, 996 [1980]; People v Johnson, 67 AD3d 560 [2009], lv denied 14 NY3d 802 [2010]).

2007Defendant declined the court’s offer to issue a prompt curative instruction (see People v Young, 48 NY2d 995, 996 [1980], rearg dismissed 60 NY2d 644 [1983]; People v Montgomery, 293 AD2d 369, 371 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 712 [2002]; People v Jackson, 288 AD2d 52 , 52-53 [2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 729 [2002]), and any prejudice that might have resulted was alleviated when the court struck the responses of the witness and thereafter charged the jury to ignore any stricken testimony during its deliberations.

1997However, the prosecutor’s mischaracterization was cured by the court’s prompt curative instruction to the jury, during which the court stated, "I think [the witness] said he wasn’t sure as to which person * * * he picked out”, and invited the jury to request a readback of the relevant testimony (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396 ; People v Alexandria, 126 AD2d 655 ).

1990With respect to two of the prosecutor’s summation remarks, the trial court’s prompt curative instruction cured any possible prejudice (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396 ; People v Comer, 137 AD2d 545 ).

2015Even assuming, arguendo, that some of the prosecutor’s remarks were improper, we conclude that they were not so egregious as to deprive defendant of a fair trial, and any prejudice was alleviated by the court’s prompt curative instruction and its later instruction that the jury “may not consider sympathy” (People v Melendez, 11 AD3d 983, 984 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 888 [2005]; see People v Riley, 117 AD3d 1495, 1496 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1088 [2014]).

2015Even assuming, arguendo, that some of the prosecutor’s remarks were improper, we conclude that they were not so egregious as to deprive defendant of a fair trial, and any prejudice was alleviated by the court’s prompt curative instruction and its later instruction that the jury “may not consider sympathy” (People v Melendez, 11 AD3d 983, 984 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 888 [2005]; see People v Riley, 117 AD3d 1495, 1496 [2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 1088 [2014]).

2014With respect to the preserved instance of alleged misconduct, we agree with defendant that the prosecutor improperly appealed to the jurors’ sympathies (see People v Fisher, 18 NY3d 964, 967 [2012]; People v Ballerstein, 52 AD3d 1192, 1194 [2008]), but we conclude that the court’s prompt curative instruction was sufficient to alleviate any prejudice to defendant (see People v Chatt, 77 AD3d 1285, 1287 [2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 793 [2011]; People v Cooley, 50 AD3d 1548, 1549 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 957 [2008]).

2014With respect to the preserved instance of alleged misconduct, we agree with defendant that the prosecutor improperly appealed to the jurors’ sympathies (see People v Fisher, 18 NY3d 964, 967 [2012]; People v Ballerstein, 52 AD3d 1192, 1194 [2008]), but we conclude that the court’s prompt curative instruction was sufficient to alleviate any prejudice to defendant (see People v Chatt, 77 AD3d 1285, 1287 [2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 793 [2011]; People v Cooley, 50 AD3d 1548, 1549 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 957 [2008]).

2014With respect to the preserved instance of alleged misconduct, we agree with defendant that the prosecutor improperly appealed to the jurors’ sympathies (see People v Fisher, 18 NY3d 964, 967 [2012]; People v Ballerstein, 52 AD3d 1192, 1194 [2008]), but we conclude that the court’s prompt curative instruction was sufficient to alleviate any prejudice to defendant (see People v Chatt, 77 AD3d 1285, 1287 [2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 793 [2011]; People v Cooley, 50 AD3d 1548, 1549 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 957 [2008]).

2014With respect to the preserved instance of alleged misconduct, we agree with defendant that the prosecutor improperly appealed to the jurors’ sympathies (see People v Fisher, 18 NY3d 964, 967 [2012]; People v Ballerstein, 52 AD3d 1192, 1194 [2008]), but we conclude that the court’s prompt curative instruction was sufficient to alleviate any prejudice to defendant (see People v Chatt, 77 AD3d 1285, 1287 [2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 793 [2011]; People v Cooley, 50 AD3d 1548, 1549 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 957 [2008]).

2014With respect to the preserved instance of alleged misconduct, we agree with defendant that the prosecutor improperly appealed to the jurors’ sympathies (see People v Fisher, 18 NY3d 964, 967 [2012]; People v Ballerstein, 52 AD3d 1192, 1194 [2008]), but we conclude that the court’s prompt curative instruction was sufficient to alleviate any prejudice to defendant (see People v Chatt, 77 AD3d 1285, 1287 [2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 793 [2011]; People v Cooley, 50 AD3d 1548, 1549 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 957 [2008]).

2014With respect to the preserved instance of alleged misconduct, we agree with defendant that the prosecutor improperly appealed to the jurors’ sympathies (see People v Fisher, 18 NY3d 964, 967 [2012]; People v Ballerstein, 52 AD3d 1192, 1194 [2008]), but we conclude that the court’s prompt curative instruction was sufficient to alleviate any prejudice to defendant (see People v Chatt, 77 AD3d 1285, 1287 [2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 793 [2011]; People v Cooley, 50 AD3d 1548, 1549 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 957 [2008]).

2014With respect to the preserved instance of alleged misconduct, we agree with defendant that the prosecutor improperly appealed to the jurors’ sympathies (see People v Fisher, 18 NY3d 964, 967 [2012]; People v Ballerstein, 52 AD3d 1192, 1194 [2008]), but we conclude that the court’s prompt curative instruction was sufficient to alleviate any prejudice to defendant (see People v Chatt, 77 AD3d 1285, 1287 [2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 793 [2011]; People v Cooley, 50 AD3d 1548, 1549 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 957 [2008]).

2014With respect to the preserved instance of alleged misconduct, we agree with defendant that the prosecutor improperly appealed to the jurors’ sympathies (see People v Fisher, 18 NY3d 964, 967 [2012]; People v Ballerstein, 52 AD3d 1192, 1194 [2008]), but we conclude that the court’s prompt curative instruction was sufficient to alleviate any prejudice to defendant (see People v Chatt, 77 AD3d 1285, 1287 [2010], lv denied 17 NY3d 793 [2011]; People v Cooley, 50 AD3d 1548, 1549 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 957 [2008]).

2012“The court’s prompt curative instruction minimized any prejudice caused by the improper testimony” (People v Roman, 17 AD3d 1166, 1166 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 768 [2005]).

2012“The court’s prompt curative instruction minimized any prejudice caused by the improper testimony” (People v Roman, 17 AD3d 1166, 1166 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 768 [2005]).

2023Any prejudice to defendant by this single reference was alleviated by the court's prompt curative instruction to the jurors to disregard it ( see People v Rizzo , 201 AD3d 524 , 524-525 [1st Dept 2022], lv denied 38 NY3d 953 [2022]; People v Lopez , 131 AD3d 878, 879 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1146 [2016]).

2023Any prejudice to defendant by this single reference was alleviated by the court's prompt curative instruction to the jurors to disregard it ( see People v Rizzo , 201 AD3d 524 , 524-525 [1st Dept 2022], lv denied 38 NY3d 953 [2022]; People v Lopez , 131 AD3d 878, 879 [1st Dept 2015], lv denied 26 NY3d 1146 [2016]).

2014Nonetheless, we agree with Supreme Court’s determination that under the circumstances—particularly the fleeting nature of the comment and the strength of the other proof—the drastic remedy of dismissal of the indictment was not warranted (see People v Morrison, 110 AD3d 1380 , 1381-1382 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1201 [2014]; People v Kidwell, 88 AD3d 1060, 1061-1062 [2011]; People v Ramos, 48 AD3d 984, 985-986 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 938 [2008], cert denied 556 US 1110 [2009]).

2014Nonetheless, we agree with Supreme Court’s determination that under the circumstances—particularly the fleeting nature of the comment and the strength of the other proof—the drastic remedy of dismissal of the indictment was not warranted (see People v Morrison, 110 AD3d 1380 , 1381-1382 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1201 [2014]; People v Kidwell, 88 AD3d 1060, 1061-1062 [2011]; People v Ramos, 48 AD3d 984, 985-986 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 938 [2008], cert denied 556 US 1110 [2009]).

2014Nonetheless, we agree with Supreme Court’s determination that under the circumstances—particularly the fleeting nature of the comment and the strength of the other proof—the drastic remedy of dismissal of the indictment was not warranted (see People v Morrison, 110 AD3d 1380 , 1381-1382 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1201 [2014]; People v Kidwell, 88 AD3d 1060, 1061-1062 [2011]; People v Ramos, 48 AD3d 984, 985-986 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 938 [2008], cert denied 556 US 1110 [2009]).

2014Nonetheless, we agree with Supreme Court’s determination that under the circumstances—particularly the fleeting nature of the comment and the strength of the other proof—the drastic remedy of dismissal of the indictment was not warranted (see People v Morrison, 110 AD3d 1380 , 1381-1382 [2013], lv denied 22 NY3d 1201 [2014]; People v Kidwell, 88 AD3d 1060, 1061-1062 [2011]; People v Ramos, 48 AD3d 984, 985-986 [2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 938 [2008], cert denied 556 US 1110 [2009]).

2012Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his mo tion for a mistrial following testimony from Detective Rhoderick Barrett that, during the course of the investigation, he “went through some of the old burglary cases.” The Supreme Court sustained defense counsel’s immediate objection, struck the statement, and gave a prompt curative instruction, which was sufficient to alleviate any prejudice (see People v Hicks, 84 AD3d 1402, 1402-1403 [2011]; People v Brescia, 41 AD3d 613, 613-614 [2007]).

2012Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying his mo tion for a mistrial following testimony from Detective Rhoderick Barrett that, during the course of the investigation, he “went through some of the old burglary cases.” The Supreme Court sustained defense counsel’s immediate objection, struck the statement, and gave a prompt curative instruction, which was sufficient to alleviate any prejudice (see People v Hicks, 84 AD3d 1402, 1402-1403 [2011]; People v Brescia, 41 AD3d 613, 613-614 [2007]).

2012The defendant received meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).

2012The defendant received meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).

2012The defendant received meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).

2012The defendant received meaningful representation (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 712 [1998]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).

2004Any prejudice to the defendant that might have arisen from the detective’s testimony was alleviated when the Supreme Court gave a prompt curative instruction (see People v Vincent, 250 AD2d 787, 788 [1998]).

2002The Supreme Court sustained the defendant’s objection, struck the offending testimony, and issued a prompt curative instruction (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865 ; People v Vincent, 250 AD2d 787 ).

1996Thus, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for a mistrial (see, People v Ortiz, 54 NY2d 288, 292 ).

1991We note in this respect that immediately after the witness’s comment was made, the trial court sustained defense counsel’s objection and administered a prompt curative instruction, which, we find, was sufficient to dispel any prejudice to the defendant (see, People v Rodriguez-Alvarez, 156 AD2d 733 ; People v Santiago, 155 AD2d 628 ; People v Martin, 154 AD2d 554 ; People v Johnson, 124 AD2d 1063 ; see also, People v Ortiz, 54 NY2d 288, 294 ; People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865 ; cf., People v Blasich, 73 NY2d 673, 682 ; People v Baptiste, 72 NY2d 356 ).

2011The court then gave a prompt curative instruction, which the jury is presumed to have followed, thus alleviating any prejudice to plaintiff resulting from defendant’s brief references to the safety documents (see Bethmann v Widewaters Group, 306 AD2d 923, 924 ).

2011The court then gave a prompt curative instruction, which the jury is presumed to have followed, thus alleviating any prejudice to plaintiff resulting from defendant’s brief references to the safety documents (see Bethmann v Widewaters Group, 306 AD2d 923, 924 [2003]).

2010Under these circumstances, the court’s prompt curative instruction eliminated any prejudice to the defendant, and reversal is unwarranted (see People v Jackson, 198 AD2d 436 [1993]; People v Young, 186 AD2d 699, 700 [1992]; see generally People v Benloss, 60 AD3d 686, 687 [2009]; People v Jackson, 59 AD3d 637, 638 [2009]).

1993Under these circumstances, we find that the court’s prompt curative instruction eliminated any prejudice to the defendant, and reversal is unwarranted (see, People v Young, 186 AD2d 699 ; People v Adeline, 122 AD2d 61 ; People v Vredenburg, 110 AD2d 730 ).

2007Viewing this brief comment in light of the entire testimony, the court mitigated any prejudice by striking the answer and providing a prompt curative instruction (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]; People v Durant, 6 AD3d 938, 941 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 639 [2004]; People v Birdsall, supra at 880 ; People v Nagi, 153 AD2d 964, 964-965 [1989]).

1998In view of those instructions and the fact that there is no evidence to indicate that the Investigator’s statements were the product of any improper conduct by the prosecutor, County Court properly denied defendant’s motion for a mistrial (see, People v Naqi, 153 AD2d 964, 965 ; People v Celeste, 95 AD2d 961, 963 ).

2005Any prejudice caused by the complainant’s brief allusion to the defendant’s custodial status was alleviated by the trial court’s prompt curative instruction to the jury (see People v Santiago, 52 NY2d 865, 866 [1981]; People v Sokolov, 233 AD2d 345, 345-346 [1996]; People v Lockhart, 220 AD2d 690, 691 [1995]; People v Moore, 148 AD2d 754, 755 [1989]).

2002Consequently, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion for á mistrial (see People v Santiago, supra; People v Ortega, 224 AD2d 552 ; People v Lockhart, 220 AD2d 690 ).