People v. Madramootoo

• Citation: 267 A.D.2d 477,700 N.Y.S.2d 864
• Parties: THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>JULIAN MADRAMOOTOO, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 27 December 1999
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

267 A.D.2d 477

700 N.Y.S.2d 864

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,

v.JULIAN MADRAMOOTOO, Appellant.

Decided December 27, 1999.

Bracken, J. P., Joy, Goldstein and Florio, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court should have declared a mistrial because of the verbal confrontation between his counsel and the prosecutor in front of the jury is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the decision to declare a mistrial is within the discretion of the Supreme Court, which is in the best position to determine if it is necessary to protect a defendant's right to a fair trial (see, CPL 280.10 [1]; People v Ortiz, 54 NY2d 288, 292; People v Brown, 249 AD2d 320). The prompt curative instructions were sufficient to cure any prejudicial effect that the confrontation may have had on the jury, especially in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, People v Berg, 59 NY2d 294, 299-300; People v Vann, 182 AD2d 655, 657).

The defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708).

The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.