Opinion
February 2, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Stephen Crane, J.).
Defendant's claim of bolstering in violation of People v Trowbridge ( 305 N.Y. 471) was not preserved as a matter of law by his general objection (People v. Love, 57 N.Y.2d 1023, 1025), and, in any event, is without merit, the court's prompt curative instructions having eliminated any prejudice (see, People v Tardbania, 72 N.Y.2d 852; People v. Williams, 180 A.D.2d 423, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 954). Defendant's general objections, or his failure to object to the prompt curative instructions of the court, also leaves unpreserved his claims that the prosecutor instructed the jury on the law and shifted the burden of proof. The prosecutor's comments to the effect that defendant tailored his "story" after listening to the other witnesses, to the extent such exceeded the broad bounds of permissible rhetoric on summation (cf., People v. Gonzalez, 194 A.D.2d 436, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 718), was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt (supra).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Asch and Williams, JJ.