The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's mistrial motion made after the People's expert testified to information which had been precluded, since the court struck the testimony and issued prompt, thorough curative instructions which the jurors all promised to follow (see, People v. Santiago, 52 N.Y.2d 865; People v. Bryant, 280 A.D.2d 403, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 826). The court's actions were sufficient to prevent any prejudice.
The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant's mistrial motions made after the jury issued notes indicating it was deadlocked, and properly delivered Allen charges (Allen v. United States, 164 U.S. 492). Defendant's challenges to the language of these instructions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the instructions conveyed the proper principles, were sufficiently balanced and did not impart to the jury that it was obligated to come to a verdict (see, People v. Castiore, 279 A.D.2d 307, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 757). The court did not single out the dissenting juror nor did it indicate to him that it was instructing him to reach a verdict of guilty.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.