Opinion
February 4, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ira Globerman, J.).
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Issues relating to reliability of identification testimony were properly presented to the jury and we see no reason to disturb its findings.
Evidence that defendant's brother owned a car similar to the getaway car was properly admitted ( see, People v. Mirenda, 23 N.Y.2d 439, 453-454), and no circumstantial evidence instruction was necessary since the People's case did not rest entirely on circumstantial evidence ( see, People v. Barnes, 50 N.Y.2d 375, 380). We find that defendant opened the door to the People's introduction of a photograph of defendant that had been used in a photo array ( see, People v. Melendez, 55 N.Y.2d 445).
The court's curative actions were sufficient to prevent any prejudice that might have resulted from the People's attempts to elicit defendant's employment and welfare status ( see, People v. Santiago, 52 N.Y.2d 865). By failing to object at all, or by making generalized objections, or by failing to request further relief after objections were sustained ( see, People v. Bridgewater, 242 A.D.2d 491, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 924), defendant has failed to preserve the remainder of his various claims of prosecutorial misconduct, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find no basis for reversal.
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli and Saxe, JJ.