Opinion
October 24, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Grajales, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the prosecutor's comment during summation to the effect that "the evidence is uncontested in any relevant way" was an improper reference to his decision not to testify. Since the defendant failed to register an objection at trial to the foregoing remark, his claim is not preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05; People v Nuccie, 57 N.Y.2d 818). In any event, in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt regarding the robbery and attempted robbery of the same grocery store twice in one month and his apprehension at the scene of the second crime, there was no reasonable possibility that the prosecutor's comment might have contributed to his conviction (see, Chapman v California, 386 U.S. 18, 24; People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 243; People v Paul, 116 A.D.2d 746, lv denied 67 N.Y.2d 948). Mangano, J.P., Weinstein, Kooper and Balletta, JJ., concur.