PEOPLE v. MERCADO (1999)

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Ira Globerman, J.), rendered February 13, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, burglary in the first degree, assault in the first degree and criminal impersonation in the second degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 12 1/212 to 25 years on the robbery and burglary convictions, 5 to 15 years on the assault conviction and 1 year on the impersonation conviction, unanimously affirmed.

The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence.   Issues relating to reliability of identification testimony were properly presented to the jury and we see no reason to disturb its findings.

 Evidence that defendant's brother owned a car similar to the getaway car was properly admitted (see, People v. Mirenda, 23 N.Y.2d 439, 453-454, 297 N.Y.S.2d 532, 245 N.E.2d 194), and no circumstantial evidence instruction was necessary since the People's case did not rest entirely on circumstantial evidence (see, People v. Barnes, 50 N.Y.2d 375, 380, 429 N.Y.S.2d 178, 406 N.E.2d 1071).   We find that defendant opened the door to the People's introduction of a photograph of defendant that had been used in a photo array (see, People v. Melendez, 55 N.Y.2d 445, 449 N.Y.S.2d 946, 434 N.E.2d 1324).

 The court's curative actions were sufficient to prevent any prejudice that might have resulted from the People's attempts to elicit defendant's employment and welfare status (see, People v. Santiago, 52 N.Y.2d 865, 437 N.Y.S.2d 75, 418 N.E.2d 668).   By failing to object at all, or by making generalized objections, or by failing to request further relief after objections were sustained (see, People v. Bridgewater, 242 A.D.2d 491, 662 N.Y.S.2d 120, lv. denied 91 N.Y.2d 923, 670 N.Y.S.2d 405, 693 N.E.2d 752), defendant has failed to preserve the remainder of his various claims of prosecutorial misconduct, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice.   Were we to review these claims, we would find no basis for reversal.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.

MEMORANDUM DECISION.