Opinion
November 22, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gerges, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he was denied a fair trial when one of the prosecution witnesses stated that he had taken a polygraph test. We disagree. The court gave an adequate curative instruction, directing the jury to disregard the statement, not to speculate about it or the results, and not to draw any inferences or conclusions from the statement. The court also ordered the statement stricken from the record. Under these circumstances, we find that the court's prompt curative instruction eliminated any prejudice to the defendant, and reversal is unwarranted (see, People v Young, 186 A.D.2d 699; People v Adeline, 122 A.D.2d 61; People v Vredenburg, 110 A.D.2d 730).
We also find no improvident exercise of the court's discretion in its Sandoval ruling. The court's preclusion of the mention of the use of a gun in either of the defendant's prior convictions, among other limitations, demonstrated the court's balancing of the prejudicial effect against the probative worth of the prior convictions (see, People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371; People v Dubose, 147 A.D.2d 585).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Balletta, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.