Opinion
October 28, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
While the trial record demonstrates that, during cross-examination, a police witness referred to a statement made by the defendant which had not been the subject of a Huntley hearing (see, People v. Huntley, 15 N.Y.2d 72), we find unpersuasive the defendant's contention that this remark constituted reversible error. Initially, the record fails to support the defendant's assertion that the prosecutor had entered into a stipulation (see, CPL 710.60 [b]) to forego the use of the challenged statement at the trial (cf., People v. White, 73 N.Y.2d 468, cert denied 493 U.S. 859). Moreover, while we entertain serious doubt that the statement was the product of custodial interrogation and therefore had to be preceded by Miranda warnings (see, People v. Huffman, 41 N.Y.2d 29; cf., Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436), we note, in any event, that, at worst, the witness's single, brief reference to the statement constituted harmless error given the strength of the People's case, the nature of the statement itself, and the trial court's prompt curative action in directing the jury to disregard the remark (see, People v. White, supra; People v. Moolenaar, 88 A.D.2d 1093; People v. Jackson, 84 A.D.2d 794; People v. Greene, 78 A.D.2d 904).
The defendant's claim that the prosecutor's summation improperly referred to his pretrial silence is unpreserved for appellate review, as this contention was not advanced at the trial level (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Johnson, 110 A.D.2d 1057).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, O'Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.