Opinion
February 8, 1999
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Friedman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the prompt curative action of the trial court minimized any prejudicial effect of a police detective's, inadvertent reference on redirect examination to a conversation he had with the defendant's alibi witnesses ( see, People v. Windley, 181 A.D.2d 703).
At the trial, the People were allowed to introduce into evidence an inculpatory statement made by the defendant in his pretrial motion to dismiss. The defendant contends that the court erred in redacting from the motion certain statements which he asserts were exculpatory. However, where, as here, the excluded statements neither modify nor explain the admitted statement, it is not an improvident exercise of discretion to redact the statements in question ( see, People v. Rodriguez, 188 A.D.2d 566).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
Joy, J. P., Friedmann, Krausman and Luciano, JJ., concur.