Opinion
December 10, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Rettinger, J.).
The court's Sandoval ruling was an appropriate exercise of discretion ( see, People v. Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292). Contrary to defendant's argument, a fair reading of the record establishes that the People only elicited acts covered by the Sandoval ruling.
The court's curative instruction was sufficient to dispel the prejudicial effect of any error in admitting into evidence the amount of money and the denominations of the money taken from defendant upon his arrest ( see, People v. Jones, 200 A.D.2d 764, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 873; People v. Berry, 182 A.D.2d 824, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 828; People v. Cruz, 164 A.D.2d 761, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 985). The court's polling of the individual jurors clearly demonstrated that each juror could comply with the court's instruction ( see, People v. Cruz, supra). Contrary to defendant's claim, the curative instruction was not, in itself, prejudicial.
Defendant's claim that he was deprived of a fair trial by the court's excessive questioning of him, or by the court's other interjections during trial, is not preserved for review ( People v. Charleston, 56 N.Y.2d 886), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court's questioning of defendant served to clarify the testimony and to develop significant factual information that defense counsel himself was presenting to the jury ( see, People v. Moulton, 43 N.Y.2d 944). To the extent that the court made certain remarks to defense counsel in front of the jury, these were occasioned by defense counsel's conduct ( see, People v. Johnson, 219 A.D.2d 509, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 903). The court did not unduly interject itself into the trial or conduct the trial in a biased manner.
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.