Opinion
April 17, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kellam, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Although the prosecutor's remark in the course of her summation was an incorrect statement of the law (see, Penal Law § 270.20), any prejudice resulting from the remark was cured by the trial court's prompt curative instructions. Moreover, the remark was isolated (see, People v. Safian, 46 N.Y.2d 181).
The defendant's contention that the trial court's instruction on interested witnesses was erroneous is not preserved for appellate review, as the defense counsel agreed to the instruction when it was proposed at the charge conference and failed to request reinstruction when offered the opportunity to do so (CPL 470.05; People v. Melvin, 128 A.D.2d 647). Finally, we find that the sentence imposed was not excessive given the seriousness of the crime and defendant's extensive criminal history (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Rubin, J.P., Kooper, Sullivan and Balletta, JJ., concur.