Opinion
November 18, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Chetta, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was arrested after a police officer observed him selling crack-cocaine in the hallway of an apartment building. At trial, both the arresting officer and his partner testified that they were in the building to investigate a report of a "drug related" shooting.
The defendant asserts that the reference to a "drug related" shooting deprived him of a fair trial. Since no objection was raised at trial with respect to this issue, any claim of error is not preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05). In any event, the limited reference to a "drug related" shooting merely served to complete the narrative of the events leading up to the defendant's commission of the charged offense and was therefore admissible (see, People v. Green, 170 A.D.2d 530; People v Davis, 169 A.D.2d 774, 775).
Also meritless is the defendant's claim that he was deprived of a fair trial by a remark the prosecutor made while cross-examining the alleged purchaser of the crack-cocaine, who testified for the defense. After the purchaser denied that the defendant was the one who sold him the crack, the prosecutor asked: "Isn't it a fact that the reason that you are testifying is because you don't want your drug supplier to go to jail; isn't that the fact, that the reason you are testifying?" An objection to this question was sustained and it went unanswered. Since the defendant did not thereafter move for a mistrial or express any dissatisfaction with the court's ruling, his claim of prejudice is not preserved for appellate review (see, People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951; People v. Cruz, 147 A.D.2d 584, 584-585; People v Lewis, 140 A.D.2d 714). In any event, this one unanswered question did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396; People v. Cruz, 160 A.D.2d 893; People v Keith, 136 A.D.2d 657).
Most of the other instances of alleged prosecutorial misconduct are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Medina, supra). In any event, considered cumulatively the alleged instances of misconduct did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see, People v. Galloway, supra; cf., People v Brazzeal, 172 A.D.2d 757). Kunzeman, J.P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Balletta, JJ., concur.