Majority
Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dominic R. Mas-
When, during a lengthy narrative of the events surrounding the robbery, the victim briefly mentioned evidence that had been suppressed, the court properly exercised its discretion (see People v Ortiz, 54 NY2d 288 , 292 [1981]) in denying defendant’s mistrial motion. The court sustained objections to this testimony, and defendant did not request a curative instruction or any relief short of a mistrial (see People v Young, 48 NY2d 995 [1980]). There is no indication that the prosecutor intentionally elicited the testimony, or acted in bad faith. Furthermore, the suppressed evidence was cumulative to closely related evidence that had not been suppressed.
Concur — Sweeny, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andrias, Moskowitz and Gische, JJ.
Cases cited
- People v. Ortiz 54 NY2d 288 at 292 p. 623
- People v. Young 48 NY2d 995 p. 623