Opinion
March 30, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Patricia Anne Williams, J.).
The record fails to support defendant's contention that the conduct of the court deprived him of a fair trial. Most of the comments complained of were made in the absence of the jury. Moreover, the court's instructions and admonitions to the admittedly inexperienced defense counsel were necessary to facilitate the orderly and expeditious progress of the trial (People v. Yut Wai Tom, 53 N.Y.2d 44, 56-57; People v. Rivera, 201 A.D.2d 385, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 914) and to prevent improper trial tactics (People v. Cummings, 162 A.D.2d 142, 144, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 985).
Although the prosecutor, as well as the court, misspoke in discussing impeachment evidence concerning defendant, the misstatements in no way impinged upon the propriety of the impeaching evidence. Therefore, the cross-examination of the defendant, the prosecutor's summation and the court's charge with respect to such impeachment evidence do not warrant reversal (see, People v. Bornholdt, 33 N.Y.2d 75, 88, cert denied sub nom. Victory v. New York, 416 U.S. 905; People v. Epps, 190 A.D.2d 630, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1013). Since defense counsel did not object to the charge with respect to this evidence or with respect to the failure to charge that the police officers' testimony was not to be accorded greater weight than that of other witnesses, the current challenges are unpreserved for this Court's review (CPL 470.05). Although an instruction on the weight to be accorded a police officer's testimony should ordinarily be provided, reversal is not warranted given the overwhelming proof of defendant's guilt (see, People v. Mendoza, 166 A.D.2d 377, 378, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 880; People v. Peters, 157 A.D.2d 806, 808, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 740).
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Asch and Mazzarelli, JJ.