Opinion
Submitted December 2, 1999
December 27, 1999
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Naro, J.), rendered May 14, 1998, convicting him of assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree (three counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Herbert Kellner, Smithtown, N.Y., for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and Thomas S. Berkman of counsel), for respondent.
LAWRENCE J. BRACKEN, J.P., DANIEL W. JOY, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, ANITA R. FLORIO, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant' s contention that the Supreme Court should have declared a mistrial because of the verbal confrontation between his counsel and the prosecutor in front of the jury is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2]. In any event, the decision to declare a mistrial is within the discretion of the Supreme Court, which is in the best position to determine if it is necessary to protect a defendant's right to a fair trial (see, CPL 280.10[1]; People v. Ortiz, 54 N.Y.2d 288, 292 ; People v. Brown, 249 A.D.2d 320 ). The prompt curative instructions were sufficient to cure any prejudicial effect that the confrontation may have had on the jury, especially in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, People v. Berg, 59 N.Y.2d 294, 299-300 ;People v. Vann, 182 A.D.2d 655, 657 ).
The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708 ).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
BRACKEN, J.P., JOY, GOLDSTEIN, and FLORIO, JJ., concur.