Opinion
December 8, 1997
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Wexner, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
At trial, a detective testified that after advising the defendant of his Miranda rights, the defendant stated that he did not want to speak to the police. The defendant did not object to this testimony but, on the next day, requested that a curative instruction be given in the charge regarding the defendant's right to remain silent. A curative instruction was given, and the defendant did not voice any objection to it. Thus, the defendant's claim of error regarding the testimony is not preserved for appellate review (see, People v. Waters, 90 N.Y.2d 826; People v. Salaman, 231 A.D.2d 464; People v. Davis, 223 A.D.2d 652). In any event, while the admission of this testimony was error (see, People v. Rothschild, 35 N.Y.2d 355), reversal is not warranted since there was no reasonable possibility that such error contributed to the defendant's conviction in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt (see, People v. Davis, supra).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Mangano, P.J., Copertino, Krausman and McGinity, JJ., concur.