Opinion
May 18, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that a police detective's testimony and the People's summation improperly made references to a prior uncharged crime. Any prejudice to the defendant that might have arisen from the detective's testimony was alleviated when the court gave prompt curative, instructions. Moreover, since the defendant failed to request additional instructions, his challenge to the adequacy of the instructions is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Santiago, 52 N.Y.2d 865; People v. Reyes, 248 A.D.2d 412). The defendant's contention with respect to the People's summation comment is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant made only a general objection to the comment ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Utley, 45 N.Y.2d 908). In any event, any error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt ( see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Thompson, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.