Opinion
March 2, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Zweibel, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The prompt curative action of the trial court minimized any prejudicial effect of a prosecution witness's inadvertent reference to a "mug shot" (see, People v Green, 143 A.D.2d 768, 770), and the trial court offered to deliver further curative instructions. The defendant rejected this offer and moved for a mistrial. The trial court was correct in denying this application since a mistrial is unwarranted when a less drastic remedy is available to cure the error (see, People v Santiago, 52 N.Y.2d 865; People v Young, 48 N.Y.2d 995; People v DuBose, 147 A.D.2d 585).
The trial court correctly ruled that extrinsic evidence of the weather on the day of the incident, directed solely to impeach the complainant's memory and powers of observation, was collateral and thus inadmissible (see, People v Schwartzman, 24 N.Y.2d 241, 245, cert denied 396 U.S. 846; see also, People v Felder, 143 A.D.2d 839). Finally, the alleged errors in the prosecutor's summation were either unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 450.05 [2]; see, People v Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951) or were sufficiently addressed by curative instructions so that a mistrial was unwarranted (see, People v Davis, 61 N.Y.2d 202, 207). Mangano, P.J., Lawrence, Eiber and Miller, JJ., concur.