Opinion
June 1, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The prosecutrix's summation did not prejudice the defendant (see, People v Roopchand, 107 A.D.2d 35, affd 65 N.Y.2d 837; People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 401). The court corrected the prosecutrix's allusion to the defendant's criminal history with a prompt curative instruction, and the prosecutrix's other remarks did not exceed the broad bounds of permissible rhetorical comment (see, People v Galloway, supra, at 399).
Contrary to the defendant's contention, we do not perceive the prosecutrix's remark during her opening statement, to the effect that the Grand Jury had accused the defendant of the two weapons possession counts, to have created the impression that the indictment was probative of the defendant's guilt, especially since the trial court instructed the jury, both in its preliminary and final charges, that the charges contained in the indictment are not evidence.
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se brief, are either unpreserved for review (see, People v Arce, 42 N.Y.2d 179, 190) or without merit. Brown, J.P., Weinstein, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.