Opinion
December 9, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, Jerome Marks, J., Alvin Schlesinger, J.
Defendant's knowledge that the property was stolen could be inferred, beyond a reasonable doubt, as a result of his recent, exclusive, unexplained possession thereof, as the jury was properly instructed (People v Baskerville, 60 N.Y.2d 374, 382-383). The prosecutor's attempt to argue that defendant had probably stolen the property himself did not, in the circumstances, constitute an accusation of an "uncharged crime" but was fair argument (supra). In any event, the court gave a prompt curative instruction to disregard the argument.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Wallach and Asch, JJ.