Opinion
May 8, 1989
Appeal from the Orange County Court (Hillery, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
At trial, the prosecutor placed the defendant in the untenable position of having to suggest, in order to maintain his innocence, that the testimony of police witnesses was perjurious. This tactic, while improper (see, People v Santiago, 78 A.D.2d 666; People v Perez, 69 A.D.2d 891), drew no objection from defense counsel and is thus unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Hudson, 143 A.D.2d 682). In any event, the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming proof of the defendant's guilt.
Furthermore, while we strongly condemn the prosecutor for having questioned the defendant regarding the allegations underlying a divorce complaint filed against him, reversal of his conviction is not warranted since the prejudicial effect of these questions was ameliorated by prompt and immediate curative instructions (see, People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396).
The defendant's remaining claim, regarding an alleged violation of his rights under Brady v Maryland ( 373 U.S. 83), has already been reviewed by this court in the context of a prior appeal by the People and we adhere to our determination therein (see, People v Alongi, 131 A.D.2d 767). Brown, J.P., Lawrence, Eiber and Sullivan, JJ., concur.