Opinion
May 14, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Vincent Vitale, J.).
Police officers, responding to a radio run of a prior armed robbery which had occurred two days earlier, were informed by the victim that one of the robbers was inside his building. As they spoke, defendant exited, and the victim immediately identified defendant as one of the robbers. As police approached defendant, he reached into his jacket pocket. The arresting officer testified that in view of the complaint of an armed robbery, he feared for his safety, and immediately reached in and extracted a loaded gun from defendant's pocket. Twenty-five vials of cocaine were subsequently recovered from defendant's person during a precinct search.
Police officers have a right to rely upon information furnished by private citizens who report crimes that they have witnessed or which have been perpetrated against them (People v Vasquez, 162 A.D.2d 153, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 867). Under these circumstances, we presume the credibility of the citizen informant, who was a victim (see, People v Hicks, 38 N.Y.2d 90, 92-93; People v Cruz, 149 A.D.2d 151) and conclude that the police acted with reasonable suspicion that a crime had been committed (People v Vasquez, supra).
Defendant's challenge to the prosecutor's conduct during cross-examination of the defendant is unpreserved for review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05). If we were to review, we would note that defendant's voluntary reference to being stopped on the basis of an accusation of robbery, opened the door to the prosecutor's questions on cross-examination. (See, People v McCullough, 141 A.D.2d 856, 858, lv dismissed 73 N.Y.2d 924.)
Defendant also failed to preserve his present objection to the prosecutor's comment on summation which referred to defendant's admission concerning the unrelated robbery, and we decline to review the claim in the interest of justice. Defendant's challenge to the prosecutor's comment on summation which insinuated that defendant sold drugs, does not warrant reversal, in view of the fact that defendant's objection was sustained and the court issued curative instructions, which we presume were followed by the jury (see, People v Rodriguez, 103 A.D.2d 121).
Concur — Carro, J.P., Milonas, Wallach and Kupferman, JJ.