Opinion
October 28, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pesce, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, we find that the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in failing to grant the defendant's motion for a mistrial under Indictment No. 8050/87. The inadvertent reference by a police officer to a gun found near the defendant, even though the gun had previously been ruled inadmissible by the court, did not deprive the defendant of his right to a fair trial. The reference to the gun was brief and there was no evidence indicating that the defendant had used a gun in the robbery of the complainant. Thus, any prejudice to the defendant was negated by the trial court's promptly administered curative instructions (see, People v. Almonte, 170 A.D.2d 267; People v. Capers, 170 A.D.2d 522; People v. Coates, 166 A.D.2d 389; People v. Santiago, 155 A.D.2d 628; cf., People v. Martinez, 164 A.D.2d 826).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions, including the issue raised by the defendant in his supplemental pro se brief, and also find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, O'Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.