Opinion
December 16, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lombardo, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find that the trial court properly admitted the defendant's statements to the police that he might have committed a robbery and might have been at the scene of the crime on the day in question, since these statements tended to disprove his alibi defense that he was working at home all day (see, People v Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233; People v Ely, 68 N.Y.2d 520; People v Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350; People v Vails, 43 N.Y.2d 364). Although the trial court should have redacted a portion of the defendant's videotaped statement to the Assistant District Attorney wherein he stated that he regularly stole from people (see, People v Ely, supra, at 529; People v Crandall, 67 N.Y.2d 111; People v Tabora, 139 A.D.2d 540), its failure to do so did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Kunzeman, J.P., Sullivan, Eiber and Ritter, JJ., concur.