Opinion
June 30, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Goldstein, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the court improvidently exercised its discretion by denying his motion for a mistrial after evidence of his involvement in an uncharged crime was admitted during the cross-examination of one of the People's witnesses. While evidence of uncharged crimes generally should not be admitted ( see, People v. Lewis, 69 N.Y.2d 321; People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264), any potential prejudice to the defendant here was alleviated by the court's curative instructions ( see, People v. Ortiz, 54 N.Y.2d 288; People v. Santiago, 52 N.Y.2d 865; People v. Caban, 224 A.D.2d 705). Therefore, the court properly denied the defendant's motion for a mistrial.
The court properly refused to redact those portions of the defendant's videotaped statement which addressed the issue of motive or were inextricably interwoven with otherwise admissible portions of his statement ( see, People v. Ely, 68 N.Y.2d 520; People v. Molineux, supra). While part of the videotape should have been redacted, any potential prejudice that might have resulted was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt ( see, People v. Foster, 211 A.D.2d 640; People v. Cruz, 194 A.D.2d 488).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05) and, in any event, without merit ( see, People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105; People v. Elliot, 216 A.D.2d 576; People v. Bartolomeo, 126 A.D.2d 375).
Thompson, J.P., Joy, Altman and Florio, JJ., concur.