Opinion
December 14, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kooper, J., Owens, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The testimony of the witness Carmen Soto which concerned her knowledge of the decedent's reputation for violence was stricken by the trial court after objection of the prosecutor. Since defense counsel did not object, the propriety of this ruling has not been preserved for our review (see, People v George, 67 N.Y.2d 817, 819). In any event, the trial court's ruling was proper, as it was clear that Soto and the defendant did not know each other and her knowledge of the decedent's reputation was irrelevant to the defendant's knowledge of the decedent's reputation in this justification defense case (see, People v Miller, 39 N.Y.2d 543, 548-549; People v Rodawald, 177 N.Y. 408, 423).
The comments of the prosecutor complained of by the defendant were not preserved for appellate review (see, People v Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951, 952-953; People v Santiago, 52 N.Y.2d 865, 866; People v Irby, 112 A.D.2d 447; People v Terry, 109 A.D.2d 807, 808; People v Jalah, 107 A.D.2d 762, 762-763), or were appropriate comments on the evidence presented (see, People v Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 109). Further, any unpreserved error was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, People v Wood, 66 N.Y.2d 374, 379-380).
The propriety of the trial court's jury charges on the issues of interested witnesses and the prior convictions and bad acts of the defendant was not preserved for appellate review (see, People v Cullum, 123 A.D.2d 397, 398). In any event, its charges on those issues were sufficient (see, People v Canty, 60 N.Y.2d 830, 831-832; People v Payne, 111 A.D.2d 938, 939, lv denied 66 N.Y.2d 766; People v Vera, 94 A.D.2d 728, 729).
Finally, we have considered the arguments raised by the defendant in his supplemental pro se brief and find them to be without merit. Mollen, P.J., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.