Judgment unanimously modified as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice and as modified affirmed in accordance with the following Memorandum: County Court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen defendant's case after the jury had begun deliberations. Defendant failed to establish that the proffered testimony concerned an essential element that was overlooked or that newly discovered evidence warranted reopening the proof (see, People v. Olsen, 34 N.Y.2d 349; People v. Sumpter, 199 A.D.2d 1042, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 859).
Defense counsel's failure to move for an adjournment to locate tardy witnesses cannot be attributed to the court's statement that the trial would proceed if the witnesses failed to appear; defense counsel had a duty to place an objection on the record. Those omissions, however, do not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel. Defendant has not shown that he was prejudiced thereby (cf., People v. Daley, 172 A.D.2d 619, 620-621), and the record establishes that, on the whole, defendant received effective representation (see, People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).
Prompt curative instructions eliminated any prejudice occasioned by the testimony of the police witness that he had previously arrested defendant (see, People v. Oakley, 208 A.D.2d 866, 867, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 1014).
We exercise our discretion in the interest of justice to reduce the sentence for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree to a term of incarceration of 5 to 10 years.