Opinion
May 5, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Blumenfeld, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The complainant was returning to his home in Queens after working the late-night shift at a Manhattan restaurant when he was confronted by four men who pushed him into the doorway of a delicatessen and stole his watch, a paycheck, some identification, and thirteen dollars in cash. Fortuitously, two police officers arrived on the scene and within a few minutes they arrested the defendant and his three accomplices based on their identification by the victim. The defendant was subsequently tried and convicted of robbery in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree.
The defendant's sole contention on appeal is that certain comments made during the prosecutor's summation constitute reversible error. We disagree. Although the prosecutor's comments were improper, the trial court's immediate curative instructions were sufficient to dispel whatever prejudicial effect those comments may have had on the jury ( see, People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396; People v. Melendez, 158 A.D.2d 720; People v. Jalah, 107 A.D.2d 762). Moreover, in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, there is no significant probability that the defendant would have been acquitted if the remarks had not been made. Therefore, the error in the prosecution's summation was harmless ( see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 242; People v. Roopchand, 107 A.D.2d 35, affd 65 N.Y.2d 837).
O'Brien, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and Luciano, JJ., concur.