Opinion
April 27, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Miller, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the trial court committed reversible error in connection with its comments, during the jury voir dire and during its final charge to the jury, regarding the defendant's failure to testify. Since the defendant failed to register an objection to the court's final charge, his argument in that respect is unpreserved for appellate review (People v Autry, 75 N.Y.2d 836). Moreover, although the court erred by delivering preliminary instructions which exceeded the plain and simple language of CPL 300.10 (2) (People v McLucas, 15 N.Y.2d 167; People v Baker, 153 A.D.2d 865), we find that this error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because there is no reasonable possibility that it contributed to the defendant's conviction (People v Wilson, 162 A.D.2d 747). There was overwhelming proof of the defendant's guilt, and the instructions were consistent with the intent of the statute, and were not so extensive as to prejudicially draw the jury's attention to the defendant's failure to testify (People v Davidson, 150 A.D.2d 717; People v Baker, supra).
Although it was improper for the prosecutor to elicit testimony from the arresting officers that they arrested the defendant after the complainant had identified him (People v Trow-bridge, 305 N.Y. 471; People v Blue, 155 A.D.2d 472), the error was harmless inasmuch as there was overwhelming proof of the defendant's guilt, and there is no significant probability that the defendant would have been acquitted but for the bolstering (People v Johnson, 57 N.Y.2d 969; People v Lacy, 166 A.D.2d 168).
We find that the defendant's sentence was neither harsh nor excessive (People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be largely unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Thompson, J.P, Lawrence, Miller and Ritter, JJ., concur.