Opinion
March 3, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Richard Andrias, J.).
By failing to request further relief following the court's curative action ( see, People v. Santiago, 52 N.Y.2d 865), defendant failed to preserve his claim that the court should have instructed the jury to disregard a purported legal conclusion by a police witness, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the officer's testimony did not constitute a legal conclusion and did not convey to the jury that he possessed additional information not elicited during the trial. In any event, the court's curative instruction to consider the statement only for credibility purposes ameliorated any possible prejudice to defendant.
The court properly declined to include the language requested by defendant in its jury instructions defining robbery. The charge, read as a whole, sufficiently applied the facts to the proper principles of law ( see, People v. Batista, 209 A.D.2d 326, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 1028).
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Tom, JJ.