Opinion
January 28, 1999.
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin Weissberg, J.).
The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's motion for a mistrial based on improper rebuttal testimony, choosing instead to strike the testimony and give a curative instruction that the jury is presumed to have followed ( see, People v. Santiago, 52 N.Y.2d 865).
Defendant's challenge to one of the court's supplemental instructions is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice ( People v. Gruttola, 43 N.Y.2d 116; People v. Marrero, 219 A.D.2d 518). Were we to review this claim, we would find that the supplemental charge responded meaningfully to the question posed by the jury, which did not, in context, require repetition of the entire definition of robbery ( see, People v. Aldomovar, 62 N.Y.2d 126, 131;. People v. Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296, cert denied 459 U.S. 847).
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Tom and Andrias, JJ.