The trial court properly allowed the prosecutor to establish the fact that the accomplice in the robbery was defendant's brother, and to comment on this fact during summation. The familial relationship "was relevant to prove that [the accomplice] and defendant had acted together because it was more likely that they acted together if they knew each other than if they did not know each other" ( People v. Hurd, 160 A.D.2d 199, 200, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 789). The probative value of this evidence outweighed any prejudicial effect. Moreover, the court's appropriate limiting instructions discouraged the jury from inferring "guilt by association".
The challenged rulings by the court during the defense summation caused no prejudice to defendant because counsel adequately covered the points in question notwithstanding the court's rulings. The court's, negative responses to defense counsel's objections also caused no prejudice, because in its jury charge the court emphasized that any admonition it had directed at any attorney should not be considered evidence in the case ( People v. Yanowitch, 227 A.D.2d 225, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 997).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be unpreserved and without merit.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Williams and Tom, JJ.