Opinion
April 27, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leahy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find that the prosecutor's improper remarks did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial. Many of the contentions regarding remarks now challenged by the defendant were not preserved for our review since the defendant failed to request additional curative instructions or move for a mistrial once the trial court sustained his objection and issued curative instructions (see, CPL 470.05; People v Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951, 953; People v Rodriguez, 135 A.D.2d 586). In any event, even though several of the prosecutor's remarks during summation improperly referred to matter outside of the evidence, we find that the other remarks were a fair comment on the evidence. Additionally, we find that the improper comments did not prejudice the defendant in light of the overwhelming evidence of his guilt, including his identification by three eyewitnesses and the fact that his fingerprints were found at the scene (see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230). Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Lawrence and Ritter, JJ., concur.