Opinion
May 26, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Upon the exercise of our factual review power we are satisfied that the evidence established the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15). His claims that the Trial Judge unduly interfered in the proceedings by excessive questioning of witnesses are not preserved for appellate review (see, People v. Charleston, 56 N.Y.2d 886; People v. Dickson, 112 A.D.2d 312). In any event, the questions asked did not prejudice the defendant and were designed to elicit relevant and important facts in order to facilitate the orderly progress of the trial (see, People v. Yut Wai Tom, 53 N.Y.2d 44).
The defendant's next claim is that the prosecutor's summation was inflammatory. Like the claim of judicial interference, the bulk of the prosecutor's alleged errors are not preserved for our review (CPL 470.05; People v. Derhi, 110 A.D.2d 709). In any event, any comments that could have been prejudicial were promptly stricken and curative instructions were given (see, People v. Watson, 121 A.D.2d 487, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 818).
We have examined the defendant's other contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Weinstein and Harwood, JJ., concur.