Opinion
February 9, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Steven Barrett, J.).
The verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490). We see no reason to disturb the jury's determinations concerning the complainant's credibility and reliability.
Defendant's unpreserved contention that the court's instructions to the jury deprived him of his privilege against self-incrimination is not exempt from the requirement of preservation, because there was no express or unambiguous comment on defendant's failure to testify ( see, People v. Burke, 72 N.Y.2d 833), and we decline to review this claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court's curative instruction following defendant's outburst was proper since it did not imply that defendant could or should testify ( compare, People v. Mercado, 120 A.D.2d 619, 620). Moreover, we perceive no improvident exercise of discretion in the court's decision to deliver an unrequested no adverse inference charge at the close of evidence ( see, People v. Stinson, 186 A.D.2d 23, 24).
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining arguments, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief.
Concur — Williams, J. P., Wallach, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.