promptly sustained defense in New York

2011Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the court’s curative instructions were sufficient to alleviate any prejudice to defendant as a result of the detective’s unsolicited testimony (see People v Pierre, 37 AD3d 1172 , lv denied 8 NY3d 989 ; see also People v Nicholas, 286 AD2d 861, 862 , affd 98 NY2d 749 ; People v Clark, 281 AD2d 947 , lv denied 96 NY2d 860 ).

2011Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the court’s curative instructions were sufficient to alleviate any prejudice to defendant as a result of the detective’s unsolicited testimony (see People v Pierre, 37 AD3d 1172 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 989 [2007]; see also People v Nicholas, 286 AD2d 861, 862 [2001], affd 98 NY2d 749 [2002]; People v Clark, 281 AD2d 947 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 860 [2001]).

2011Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the court’s curative instructions were sufficient to alleviate any prejudice to defendant as a result of the detective’s unsolicited testimony (see People v Pierre, 37 AD3d 1172 , lv denied 8 NY3d 989 ; see also People v Nicholas, 286 AD2d 861, 862 , affd 98 NY2d 749 ; People v Clark, 281 AD2d 947 , lv denied 96 NY2d 860 ).

2011Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude that the court’s curative instructions were sufficient to alleviate any prejudice to defendant as a result of the detective’s unsolicited testimony (see People v Pierre, 37 AD3d 1172 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 989 [2007]; see also People v Nicholas, 286 AD2d 861, 862 [2001], affd 98 NY2d 749 [2002]; People v Clark, 281 AD2d 947 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 860 [2001]).

1992In all other respects, the prosecutor’s summation constituted fair comment on the evidence, presented within the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing argument (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396 ).

1987Defendant’s claim that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial based upon testimony that defendant threatened the life of a key prosecution witness is without merit because the trial court promptly sustained defense counsel’s objection to the remark and instructed the jury to disregard it (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 ; People v Arce, 42 NY2d 179, 190 ; People v McCloskey, 92 AD2d 672, 673-674 ).

1994Defendant’s claim concerning improper bolstering of the eyewitness’ identification testimony does not require reversal under the circumstances presented, since, to the extent the issue is preserved, the court promptly sustained defense counsel’s objection to the testimony and directed the jury to disregard it (People v Ortiz, 188 AD2d 292 , lv denied 81 NY2d 890 ).

1992Moreover, defendant does not contest that similar testimony was properly admissible on rebuttal, after he questioned whether and how the eyewitness made his identification (People v Carll, 184 AD2d 236 , lv denied 80 NY2d 902 ), and, in any event, any error was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt (see, People v Johnson, 57 NY2d 969 ).

1992Moreover, defendant does not contest that similar testimony was properly admissible on rebuttal, after he questioned whether and how the eyewitness made his identification (People v Carll, 184 AD2d 236 , lv denied 80 NY2d 902 ), and, in any event, any error was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt (see, People v Johnson, 57 NY2d 969 ).

1992Moreover, defendant does not contest that similar testimony was properly admissible on rebuttal, after he questioned whether and how the eyewitness made his identification (People v Carll, 184 AD2d 236 , lv denied 80 NY2d 902 ), and, in any event, any error was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt (see, People v Johnson, 57 NY2d 969 ).

1987Thus, there was no manifest necessity to declare a mistrial (see, People v Moolenaar, 88 AD2d 1093 ; Matter of Cardin u Sedita, 53 AD2d 253, 256 ).

1987Thus, there was no manifest necessity to declare a mistrial (see, People v Moolenaar, 88 AD2d 1093 ; Matter of Cardin u Sedita, 53 AD2d 253, 256 ).

1987Defendant’s claim that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial based upon testimony that defendant threatened the life of a key prosecution witness is without merit because the trial court promptly sustained defense counsel’s objection to the remark and instructed the jury to disregard it (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 ; People v Arce, 42 NY2d 179, 190 ; People v McCloskey, 92 AD2d 672, 673-674 ).

1987Defendant’s claim that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial based upon testimony that defendant threatened the life of a key prosecution witness is without merit because the trial court promptly sustained defense counsel’s objection to the remark and instructed the jury to disregard it (see, People v Galloway, 54 NY2d 396, 399 ; People v Arce, 42 NY2d 179, 190 ; People v McCloskey, 92 AD2d 672, 673-674 ).