Opinion
June 12, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Alfano, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by the manner in which the court marshaled the evidence in its charge is without merit. The court fairly and accurately summarized the testimony of all three primary witnesses, and was not further required to set forth all the contentions of the parties or the inconsistencies in the evidence (see, People v Saunders, 64 N.Y.2d 665; People v. Williamson, 40 N.Y.2d 1073; People v. Roopchand, 107 A.D.2d 35, affd 65 N.Y.2d 837; People v McDonald, 144 A.D.2d 701). Moreover, the court also advised the jurors that their recollection of the evidence was controlling (see, People v. McDonald, supra; People v. Scales, 121 A.D.2d 578).
Further, while the People concede that two remarks made by the prosecutor on summation would have been better left unsaid, in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt these remarks were harmless error (see, People v. Roopchand, 107 A.D.2d 35, supra).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find that they are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Brown, J.P., Kooper, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.