Opinion
No. 2005-01463.
June 12, 2007.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.), rendered January 6, 2005, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree and attempted robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Lynn W. L. Fahey, New York, N.Y. (Barry Stendig and Orrick, Herrington Sutcliffe LLP [Mayotta H. Anderson, Jay K. Musoff, and Stephane Valat] of counsel), for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Anthea H. Bruffee, and Kaye Scholer LLP [Steven R. Wirth] of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Mastro, J.P., Covello, Angiolillo and Dickerson, JJ.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's motion for a mistrial. The decision whether to grant a motion for mistrial rests within the sound discretion of the trial court ( see People v Ortiz, 54 NY2d 288, 292 [1981]), which is in the best position to determine if it is necessary to protect the defendant's right to a fair trial ( see People v Cooper, 173 AD2d 551). Although one of the prosecution's witnesses testified on cross-examination that she knew the defendant "for robbing other people," the Supreme Court struck the testimony, gave a curative instruction, and, upon the defendant's motion for a mistrial, gave further curative instructions ( see People v Hernandez, 11 AD3d 479).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).