PEOPLE v. REYES PAREDES (2004)

 On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of, inter alia, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39[1] ) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (§ 220.16[1] ), defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in instructing the jury with respect to its assessment of the credibility of a witness who was a police informant.   We reject that contention and conclude that, when viewed in their entirety, the court's instructions in that respect were proper (see generally People v. Samuels, 99 N.Y.2d 20, 25-26, 750 N.Y.S.2d 828, 780 N.E.2d 513). We further reject the contention of defendant that the court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial based on the testimony of a prosecution witness in violation of the court's Molineux ruling.  “Any prejudice to defendant that might have arisen from the mention of uncharged criminal activity was alleviated when [the c]ourt sustained defendant's objection and gave prompt curative instructions to the jury” (People v. Brooks, 213 A.D.2d 999, 999, 624 N.Y.S.2d 319, lv. denied 85 N.Y.2d 970, 629 N.Y.S.2d 730, 653 N.E.2d 626).   We note in addition that, following the court's curative instructions, defendant neither objected further nor sought a mistrial, and thus the curative instructions must be deemed to have corrected the error to defendant's satisfaction (see id.).

 Defendant further contends that the court erred in denying his motion for a mistrial on the ground that the police destroyed records of telephone calls made to and from the apartment where he allegedly delivered cocaine.   We reject that contention.   Here, there is no “reasonable probability that, had the evidence been disclosed to the defense, the result of the proceeding would have been different” (People v. Wright, 86 N.Y.2d 591, 597, 635 N.Y.S.2d 136, 658 N.E.2d 1009).   Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: