Opinion
August 21, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (DeLury, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claims of improper bolstering were unpreserved for appellate review, due to his failure to object to the testimony, or, in the case of the complainant's reference to "the photos", because curative instructions were given and the defense counsel expressed satisfaction therewith (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Santiago, 52 N.Y.2d 865; People v. Washington, 176 A.D.2d 769; People v. Ray, 127 A.D.2d 859). In light of the strong evidence of identification, we decline to review these contentions in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, People v. Major, 142 A.D.2d 603).
The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in failing to grant a mistrial based on a police witness's reference to the Department of Parole. The remark was made inadvertently and immediately stricken from the record. Any negative inference that the defendant might have had a prior criminal record was harmless in light of the strong evidence of guilt (see, People v. Simmons, 204 A.D.2d 214; People v. Kelly, 201 A.D.2d 668; People v. Cruz, 194 A.D.2d 488; People v. Jenkins, 122 A.D.2d 74).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, without merit, or do not require reversal. Miller, J.P., O'Brien, Ritter and Goldstein, JJ., concur.