Opinion
March 9, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Kuffner, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Although the court erred in instructing the jury, in the absence of a request by the defendant, that no adverse inference should be drawn from the defendant's failure to testify ( see, CPL 300.10; People v. Vereen, 45 N.Y.2d 856; People v. Bradshaw, 154 A.D.2d 690), reversal is not required since the court's instruction was short and basically mirrored the statutory text ( see, People v. Wilkins, 176 A.D.2d 976) and the defendant was reasonably alerted to the proposed content of the instruction. Furthermore, the court's instruction was neutral in tone and in no way implied that "the defendant should have testified or that he refrained from doing so as a tactical maneuver" ( People v. Wilkins, supra; cf., People v. Mannery, 151 A.D.2d 697; People v. Reid, 135 A.D.2d 753; People v. Concepcion, 128 A.D.2d 887). Thus, there was no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the defendant's conviction ( see, People v. Vereen, supra, at 857; People v. Santiago, 187 A.D.2d 682; People v. Wilkins, supra; People v. Bradshaw, supra).
Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.