Opinion
March 2, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Although the court deviated from CPL 300.10 (2) when it twice instructed the jury with respect to the defendant's failure to testify, this did not constitute reversible error. The charge in substance was consistent with the intent of the statute, was not so lengthy as to prejudicially draw the jury's attention to this issue, and did not imply that the defendant's failure to testify was a tactical maneuver rather than an exercise of his constitutional right (see, People v. Odome, 192 A.D.2d 725, 726; People v. Williams, 188 A.D.2d 573, 574).
Under the circumstances, the defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not require reversal.
Thompson, J. P., Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.