Opinion
November 24, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Gary, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court's instruction on his failure to testify did not constitute reversible error ( see, CPL 300.10). The charge was neutral in tone, consistent in substance with the intent of the statute, not so lengthy as to prejudicially draw the jury's attention to the issue, and did not imply that the failure to testify was merely a trial maneuver rather than a constitutional right ( see, People v. Pierre, 215 A.D.2d 599; People v. Odome, 192 A.D.2d 725; People v. Gardner, 182 A.D.2d 638).
Copertino, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.