Opinion
April 26, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (John A.K. Bradley, J.).
The victim of this attempted robbery, a livery cab driver, testified at the Grand Jury and at trial through an interpreter. We find no impropriety in the prosecutor's summation, which attempted to explain what appeared to be inconsistencies by noting the difficulty with which the complainant testified through an interpreter. This argument was posed in response to defense counsel's having attacked the complainant's credibility on the basis of these purported inconsistencies. (See, People v Colon, 122 A.D.2d 151, 152, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 810.)
Defendant's contention that the court gave an overextensive charge concerning his failure to testify has not been preserved as a matter of law (see, CPL 470.05) and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice. (People v. Autry, 75 N.Y.2d 836.) Were we to consider it, we would nevertheless find it to be without merit.
Concur — Ross, J.P., Carro, Kassal, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.