Opinion
January 25, 1999.
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Roman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the prosecutor's comments in summation in effect shifted the burden of proof from the People to him by referring to the "unchallenged" and "uncontroverted" evidence of the defendant's involvement in the crime constituted reversible error is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Luperon, 85 N.Y.2d 71, 78; People v. Mingey, 190 N.Y. 61). In any event, the prosecutor's comments were not so prejudicial as to constitute reversible error ( see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230), in light of the strong evidence of the defendant's guilt and the minimal likelihood that the jury's verdict was influenced by the remarks. Moreover, the trial court's subsequent charge to the jury clarified the defendant's constitutional privilege, emphasized that the burden of proof remained with the People, and admonished the jury that no inference was to be drawn from his failure to testify ( see, People v. Bryant, 163 A.D.2d 406, 407; People v. Lynch, 145 A.D.2d 440; People v. Scott, 138 A.D.2d 421; People v. Montalvo, 125 A.D.2d 338).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Mangano, P. J., O'Brien, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.