Opinion
March 12, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Egitto, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was arrested as a result of a so-called "buy and bust" operation. An undercover officer testified that the defendant sold her two vials of the type of cocaine known as "crack". Upon his arrest, minutes after the sale, the defendant was found possessing another vial of crack. The defendant now claims that a new trial is warranted because of alleged instances of prosecutorial misconduct, errors in the jury charge, and the submission of an improper verdict sheet. We disagree.
With respect to two of the prosecutor's summation remarks, the trial court's prompt curative instruction cured any possible prejudice (see, People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396; People v Comer, 137 A.D.2d 545). The other claimed instances of prosecutorial misconduct were not preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05; People v Cisco, 155 A.D.2d 682; People v Booker, 145 A.D.2d 564; People v Corley, 140 A.D.2d 536). The defendant also failed to preserve for appellate review his objections to the jury charge and the verdict sheet (CPL 470.05; People v Hatzpavlou, 157 A.D.2d 852; People v Lugo, 150 A.D.2d 502; People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 248-252; People v Rodriguez, 144 A.D.2d 598). In light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, we decline to address any of these issues in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, People v Lugo, supra; People v Rodriguez, supra; People v Williams, 138 A.D.2d 430).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.