Opinion
March 3, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hellenbrand, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
The ambiguous reference by a prosecution witness to an unrelated robbery for which the defendant was arrested does not require reversal where it was elicited by defense counsel during cross-examination and where no curative instruction was sought (see, People v. Blackshear, 112 A.D.2d 1044; People v. King, 91 A.D.2d 1073). The prosecutor's question regarding the same unrelated robbery on redirect examination merely reiterated the testimony previously elicited by defense counsel at his peril, and thus did not result in a denial of the defendant's right to a fair trial.
The defendant's remaining contentions are either without merit or unpreserved for appellate review. Gibbons, J.P., Thompson, Brown and Weinstein, JJ., concur.