Opinion
May 21, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the submission of a verdict sheet to the jury deprived him of a fair trial is not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Lugo, 150 A.D.2d 502; People v. Mathis, 150 A.D.2d 613). Moreover, in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, which included testimony of an eyewitness who had known the defendant over a period of 8 or 9 months, we decline to review the error in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, People v. Lugo, supra; People v. Decambre, 143 A.D.2d 927).
The defendant raises numerous claims of improper conduct by the prosecutor which he contends deprived him of a fair trial. For the most part, the allegations of errors arising from the comments were not preserved for appellate review by the registering of timely objections (CPL 470.05). In those instances in which objections were interposed and sustained, no further relief or curative instructions were requested, nor was a motion for a mistrial made, so that the court must be deemed to have corrected the errors to the defendant's satisfaction and any further claims of error are unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Gibbs, 59 N.Y.2d 930, 932; People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Lawrence and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.