Opinion
2016–04542 Ind. No. 5762/13
01-16-2019
The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Ernest MURPHY, Appellant.
Janet E. Sabel, New York, N.Y. (Jonathan Garelick of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Diane R. Eisner, and Daniel Berman of counsel), for respondent.
Janet E. Sabel, New York, N.Y. (Jonathan Garelick of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Diane R. Eisner, and Daniel Berman of counsel), for respondent.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P., SYLVIA O. HINDS–RADIX, COLLEEN D. DUFFY, VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ.
DECISION & ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Where an objection to an improper remark is followed by the court's curative instruction, it is presumed to alleviate any prejudice to the defendant (see People v. Ferguson, 82 N.Y.2d 837, 838, 606 N.Y.S.2d 145, 626 N.E.2d 930 ; People v. Springs, 156 A.D.3d 914, 915, 65 N.Y.S.3d 784 ; People v. Macaluso, 144 A.D.3d 947, 41 N.Y.S.3d 122 ; People v. Nealy, 32 A.D.3d 400, 401–402, 819 N.Y.S.2d 106 ). Here, the Supreme Court issued a prompt curative instruction directing the jury not to consider an improper reference by a court reporter reading from the grand jury transcript. The jury is presumed to have followed the court's instruction (see People v. Springs, 156 A.D.3d at 915, 65 N.Y.S.3d 784 ; People v. Nealy, 32 A.D.3d at 401–402, 819 N.Y.S.2d 106 ), which was sufficient to ameliorate any prejudice to the defendant and to ensure that he received a fair trial (see People v. Ferguson, 82 N.Y.2d at 838, 606 N.Y.S.2d 145, 626 N.E.2d 930 ).
LEVENTHAL, J.P., HINDS–RADIX, DUFFY and BRATHWAITE NELSON, JJ., concur.