Opinion
April 26, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pincus, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he was deprived of a fair trial by the court's instructions regarding his failure to testify. However, since no objection was made, this claim is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Autry, 75 N.Y.2d 836). In any event, we find that the court's charge did not constitute reversible error. The charge was neutral in tone, consistent in substance with the intent of the statute, not so lengthy as to prejudicially draw the jury's attention to the issue, and did not imply that the failure to testify was merely a trial maneuver rather than a constitutional right (see, People v Gardner, 182 A.D.2d 638; People v Gonzalez, 167 A.D.2d 556; People v Ogle, 142 A.D.2d 608).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Bracken, J.P., Ritter, Copertino and Santucci, JJ., concur.