Opinion
December 21, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Flug, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant is not entitled to a new trial on the ground that the court did not appoint an interpreter to assist him at trial. No such request was made during trial and the record clearly shows that the defendant had no difficulty communicating with counsel or understanding the proceedings (see, People v Reyes, 158 A.D.2d 626; People v Gamal, 148 A.D.2d 468; People v Navarro, 134 A.D.2d 460). Moreover, under the circumstances, there is no merit to his claim that trial counsel was ineffective in failing to request the appointment of an interpreter (see, People v Reyes, supra, at 627). Further, the defendant's claim that his attorney failed to advise him of the benefits of entering a plea of guilty may not be raised on direct appeal as it relies on allegations outside the record (see, People v Weinberg, 183 A.D.2d 930; People v Rivera, 180 A.D.2d 767).
In addition, the defendant was not unduly prejudiced when the prosecutor asked the defendant on cross-examination whether he was familiar with the term "Mexican Brown" heroin. The trial court acted promptly and forcefully to correct any error by sustaining the objection, admonishing the jury to disregard it, and instructing the prosecutor to move on to another topic (see, e.g., People v Reardon, 141 A.D.2d 869).
The defendant's sentence was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v Delgado, 80 N.Y.2d 780).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Lawrence and Miller, JJ., concur.