Opinion
February 4, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J.).
The trial court promptly sustained defendant's objection to the prosecutor's question regarding whether defendant said "anything" when he was apprehended, and specifically instructed the jury to disregard the question and answer. As the trial court's curative action was both prompt and correct, and as it is presumed that the jury followed the court's instructions (People v Davis, 58 N.Y.2d 1102, 1104), defendant's subsequent motion for a mistrial was properly denied (see, Hall v Potoker, 49 N.Y.2d 501, 505-506).
Further, as a positive identification of defendant by the complainant was not anticipated (nor made) based upon the complainant's fleeting view of two males in his car after he had reported it stolen, the trial court appropriately exercised its discretion in denying defendant's motion that he be permitted either to sit in the audience, or be excused from the courtroom, during the complainant's testimony regarding his observation (see, People v Benjamin, 155 A.D.2d 375, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 867). In any event, defendant's concession that he was apprehended while driving the stolen automobile, taken together with the evidence of the damaged ignition switch and the high-speed chase, presented no real identification issue that might be affected by the complainant's testimony (supra).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Rosenberger and Kupferman, JJ.