The court properly exercised its discretion in granting defense counsel a half-hour continuance to confer with defendant regarding his decision to testify and to prepare for his possible testimony, rather than three hours requested, since there had already been ample time before and during the trial for such discussions (see People v. Vetere, 287 A.D.2d 316, lv denied 97 N.Y.2d 710; People v. Quinones, 248 A.D.2d 151, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 859; compare People v. Spears, 64 N.Y.2d 698). Defendant has not established that the court's ruling caused him any prejudice.
The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's mistrial based on a detective's fleeting reference to a security officer having told him that he knew defendant from "previous incidents." This testimony did not directly implicate defendant in any uncharged crimes and was not particularly prejudicial (see People v. Flores, 210 A.D.2d 1, 2, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 1031) . Moreover, the court offered to provide a curative instruction, but defendant declined that remedy (see People v. Young, 48 N.Y.2d 995).
We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.