Opinion
August 12, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
There is sufficient evidence in the record to support the suppression court's finding that the pretrial identification procedure was not impermissibly suggestive (see, People v Chipp, 75 N.Y.2d 327, cert denied ___ US ___, 111 S Ct 99; People v Floyd, 122 A.D.2d 71; People v Lynch, 117 A.D.2d 823).
Contrary to the contention of the defendant, on the instant record, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in refusing to grant him a continuance as the evidence he sought to obtain was merely cumulative (see, People v Cable, 63 N.Y.2d 270; People v Wood, 129 A.D.2d 598).
The defendant's argument with respect to the trial court's no adverse inference charge is unpreserved for appellate review since the defendant did not object to the trial court's charge as given (see, People v Autry, 75 N.Y.2d 836). In any event, we find that the trial court's charge with respect to the defendant's failure to testify was consistent with the intent of CPL 300.10 (2), did not change the meaning of the statute (see, People v Lawton, 144 A.D.2d 584), and was not so extensive as to prejudicially draw the jury's attention to the issue (see, People v Davidson, 150 A.D.2d 717).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Balletta and O'Brien, JJ., concur.