Opinion
November 16, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ira Globerman, J.).
The fact that defendant was apprehended while incarcerated on another matter was an integral part of both the prosecution and defense cases. When a detective inadvertently violated a ruling in limine on the subject, the court gave prompt curative instructions.
The prosecutor violated the Sandoval ruling, but the prior crime elicited, robbery, did not go farther in suggesting a propensity to commit the homicide charged in this case than did the properly elicited fact of defendant's incarceration. Any prejudice was therefore minor, making reversal on this basis unwarranted.
Although there were inappropriate delays in providing Rosario material, the materials were disclosed at a time when they were useful to the defense, defense counsel did not articulate specific prejudice arising therefrom, and, we find no specific prejudice warranting reversal upon our own review of the record ( People v Jones, 200 A.D.2d 451, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 854; People v Forrest, 163 A.D.2d 213, affd 78 N.Y.2d 886).
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions which are largely unpreserved and in any event do not require reversal.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Rubin, Kupferman, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.