Opinion
November 9, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Stackhouse, J.).
Contrary to defendant's argument, the testimony of the arresting officer in this case was not incredible as a matter of law. The relatively minor discrepancies therein were fully explained, and the jury's credibility determinations, not unreasonable, will not be disturbed by this Court (People v Fonte, 159 A.D.2d 346, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 734).
The trial court acted within its discretion in determining that the official court interpreter was competent and that all instances of possible misunderstanding were sufficiently rectified so that the witness' testimony was properly presented to the jury (see, People v Frazier, 159 A.D.2d 278, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 857). Additionally, any undue prejudice to defendant that may have emanated from the clarifying questions and answers was obviated by the trial court's curative instruction, which it is presumed the jury understood and followed (People v Davis, 58 N.Y.2d 1102, 1104). Similarly, any error in the prosecutor's summation comments was rendered harmless by the trial court's prompt curative instructions (which were repeated in the main charge) and by the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt of the crimes charged (People v Rodriguez, 103 A.D.2d 121, 129).
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Ross, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.