Opinion
May 31, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Heller, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Although the trial court erred in refusing to allow the defendant to answer several questions pertaining to his state of mind which were asked so that he might attempt to explain his flight from the vicinity of the crime scene (see, People v Gonzalez, 92 A.D.2d 873, 874, rearg granted, decision amended 96 A.D.2d 847, affd 61 N.Y.2d 633), the defendant was not prejudiced thereby since his flight was explained during the course of his testimony and during his counsel's summation (see, People v Dean, 162 A.D.2d 699, 700; cf., People v Gonzalez, supra). Thus, reversal of the judgment of conviction on this basis is unwarranted.
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find either that they are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Flecha, 161 A.D.2d 116), or do not warrant reversal (see, People v Alvarez, 135 A.D.2d 543). Brown, J.P., Kunzeman, Harwood and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.