Opinion
December 28, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Lakritz, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the curative instruction given to the jury regarding uncharged criminal activity was inadequate and prejudicial is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit, as the instruction given was substantially the same instruction which was requested by the defendant. The defendant's contention that the prosecutor's summation remarks as to the lack of motive for a witness to lie is also unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Udzinski, supra) and, in any event, is without merit, as the witness's credibility was at issue (see, People v Oakley, 114 A.D.2d 473) and the defense counsel had attacked that witness's credibility and remarked as to his own witness's lack of a motive to lie (see, People v Cox, 161 A.D.2d 724; People v Medina, 133 A.D.2d 783). Rosenblatt, J.P., Ritter, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.