There is no merit to defendant's contention that a mistrial was required when one of the arresting officers testified to a statement made by defendant's companion. Defendant is correct that the testimony was improperly elicited. However the error was sufficiently cured when the objection was sustained and the court gave curative instructions to the jury. Counsel did not object to the curative instructions given, nor did he request any additional instruction. The presumption is that the jury followed the curative instructions given by the trial court in such instances (People v. Berg, 59 N.Y.2d 294, 299-300). In this case, the instructions given were sufficient to alleviate any prejudice (People v. Santiago, 70 A.D.2d 561 [1st Dept 1979], affd 52 N.Y.2d 865). Nothing more was required under the circumstances (People v. Santiago, supra).
The court properly declined to give a missing witness charge as to defendant's companion, since the latter may reasonably be viewed as an accomplice, and could hardly have been expected to testify favorably for the People, or to be within their control (People v. Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Milonas, Ellerin and Kupferman, JJ.