Opinion
September 29, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.).
Since the court sustained defense counsel's objections to the prosecutor's misstatements regarding the method by which the court had notified defense counsel of a change in the date on which defendant, who had been released on parole, was scheduled to return to court, and since the jury is presumed to have followed the court's instruction to disregard any testimony that has been stricken from the record (People v. Davis, 58 N.Y.2d 1102), we reject defendant's claim that those misstatements constitute reversible error.
Nor do we find merit to defendant's claim that the prosecutor improperly bolstered his case by referring to facts not in evidence. His statement, prefaced by the word "presumably," merely asked the jury to draw an inference from the admitted evidence (see, People v. Bailey, 58 N.Y.2d 272, 277; People v Welcome, 157 A.D.2d 603, 603-604, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 925).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Kupferman, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.