Opinion
March 13, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Meyerson, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant argues that the court committed reversible error when, in language that differed from the words of the statute, it instructed the jury on his failure to testify (CPL 300.10; see, People v. McLucas, 15 N.Y.2d 167; People v. Mannery, 151 A.D.2d 697). However, although it is well established that the prudent and preferred course of conduct is to charge the language of CPL 300.10 (2) without elaboration (see, e.g., People v Fehr, 150 A.D.2d 601, revd on other grounds 75 N.Y.2d 836), here, reversal is not warranted.
We note, that this argument has not been preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). The defendant's perfunctory objection at the end of the jury charge (during which he requested neither curative instructions nor a mistrial) was insufficient to alert the court to the particular claim raised on appeal, as is evidenced by the court's response to the objection (see, People v. Barrett, 166 A.D.2d 657; People v. Tucker, 102 A.D.2d 535; cf., People v Santiago, 179 A.D.2d 830). In any event, were we to reach this argument in the interest of justice, we would hold that, in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt, there was no reasonable possibility that the alleged error contributed to the defendant's conviction and that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. McPherson, 182 A.D.2d 714; People v. Kimbrough, 134 A.D.2d 618).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Balletta, J.P., O'Brien, Thompson and Ritter, JJ., concur.