Opinion
February 29, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Pitaro, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find unpersuasive the defendant's contention that he was denied a fair trial by the prosecutor's use during summation of an analogy to refute the defendant's claim of intoxication. While the example utilized by the prosecutor was undoubtedly a poor one, the record reveals that the court struck portions of his statement from the jury's consideration and repeatedly gave adequate curative instructions explaining the lack of relevance of the example to the issues presented in the case. Under these circumstances, and in view of the overwhelming proof of the defendant's guilt, which included the testimony of three eyewitnesses, the introduction of both physical evidence and the defendant's inculpatory postarrest statements, and the defendant's own trial testimony, we conclude that any resulting error was harmless (see, e.g., People v Safian, 46 N.Y.2d 181, 190, cert denied sub nom. Miner v New York, 443 U.S. 912).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them either to be unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Brown, Lawrence and Weinstein, JJ., concur.