Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
While we agree with the defendant that the Supreme Court erred when it questioned the defendant about his pretrial silence (see, People v. De George, 73 N.Y.2d 614; People v Conyers, 52 N.Y.2d 454; People v. Gluckowski, 174 A.D.2d 752), the error was harmless given that the court sustained defense counsel's objection to the questioning and directed the jury to disregard it, and in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; People v. Gluckowski, supra).
Contrary to the defendant's contention that the Supreme Court penalized him for invoking his Fifth Amendment privilege, we find that the court's charge was proper and essentially paralleled the model Criminal Jury Instructions regarding a defense witness's invocation of the privilege on matters collateral to the charges against the defendant (see, 1 CJI[NY] 7.14, at 289).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.