Opinion
October 5, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find no merit to the defendant's contention that the prosecutor's summation denied him the right to a fair trial (see, People v Roopchand, 107 A.D.2d 35, affd 65 N.Y.2d 837). The prosecutor's comments to the effect that the arresting officers had no motive to lie constituted fair responses to the defendant's assertions of police misconduct (see, People v Colonna, 135 A.D.2d 724). While it may have been improper for the prosecutor to express his opinion regarding the veracity of the defense witnesses (see, People v Whitehurst, 87 A.D.2d 896; People v Santiago, 78 A.D.2d 666), most of the defendant's objections were sustained, and curative instructions were given where the trial court deemed appropriate. The defendant failed to request further curative instructions, and the drastic remedy of mistrial was not warranted in this case (see, People v Santiago, 52 N.Y.2d 865; People v Velez, 184 A.D.2d 539). Rosenblatt, J.P., Eiber, O'Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.