Opinion
March 20, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pesce, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review the alleged instances of prosecutorial misconduct during the cross-examination of the testifying codefendant (CPL 470.05). With regard to the allegedly improper comments made by the prosecutor during summation, the defendant either failed to object, or, after his objection was sustained and the court struck the comments to which he objected, he failed to request further curative instructions, thereby indicating satisfaction with the court's action (see, People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951, 952; People v. Teeter, 47 N.Y.2d 1002, 1003). In any event, even assuming that the prosecutor's comments were inappropriate, in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, reversal would not be required (see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 401; People v. Roopchand, 107 A.D.2d 35, affd 65 N.Y.2d 837).
We have reviewed the contention raised in the defendant's supplemental pro se brief and find it to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Kunzeman, Spatt and Harwood, JJ., concur.