Opinion
May 10, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Vincent Vitale, J.).
Since defendant failed to raise any further objection or request a mistrial following the court's prompt curative instruction as to certain hearsay testimony, the instruction must be deemed to have corrected the error to defendant's satisfaction (People v. Williams, 46 N.Y.2d 1070).
Defendant did not request that the trial court include in its charge the specific language he now cites (People v. Acevedo, 181 A.D.2d 596, 597, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1045), and his subsequent exception did not alert the court to his current claim that, by failing to give this additional charge, he was denied his right to a fair trial (People v. Jackson, 76 N.Y.2d 908). In any event, the court's charge, taken as a whole, properly conveyed to the jury how it should evaluate witness testimony (People v. Canty, 60 N.Y.2d 830, 831-832; People v. Robinson, 36 N.Y.2d 224, 227-228).
Finally, the prosecutor's summation did not exceed the broad bounds of rhetorical comment permissible in closing argument (People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 399). Defendant's sentence is legal and appropriate and we decline to reduce it in the interest of justice.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Ross, Rubin and Tom, JJ.