Opinion
September 28, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the evidence elicited at the suppression hearing established that the police possessed probable cause to arrest him ( see, People v. Martinez, 80 N.Y.2d 444). The record also establishes that the defendant unequivocally abandoned the vehicle which was seized ( see, People v. Martinez, supra; People v. Bloomfield, 156 A.D.2d 572). Further, since the defendant failed to demonstrate that he had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the place searched or the items seized, he lacked standing to contest the seizure of the vehicle and the search of the garage where other property was recovered ( see, People v. Strunkey, 202 A.D.2d 610). Consequently, the hearing court properly denied that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
The defendant contends that the prosecutor's reference to certain identification testimony in her opening statement constituted prejudicial error. The defendant did not request any further instructions or request a mistrial and, consequently, his contention that the remark deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, People v. Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951). In any event, while the comments in question were clearly improper, the court's prompt curative instructions ameliorated any prejudice ( see, People v. Ferrara, 220 A.D.2d 612).
The defendant's remaining contentions regarding prosecutorial misconduct are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
Bracken, J.P., Thompson, Pizzuto and Altman, JJ., concur.