Judgment rendered upon the jury verdict affirmed.
Appeal from the judgment rendered upon the plea of guilty dismissed. Said appeal was withdrawn by defendant upon oral argument.
The accomplices' testimony in the case at bar was sufficiently corroborated by (1) expert testimony in the field of microscopic hair comparison, (2) testimony of a nonaccomplice regarding two handguns which were retrieved in his presence, after the commission of the crime, by one of the accomplices, and (3) testimony by a detective regarding the discovery of a ".38 caliber projectile on the floor" of the victim's home (see, People v Dory, 59 N.Y.2d 121; People v Hudson, 51 N.Y.2d 233; People v Allweiss, 48 N.Y.2d 40, 50).
Defendant argues that he was denied a fair trial because the jury viewed him in handcuffs on two occasions outside the courtroom.
This argument must be rejected. The Trial Judge gave the jury an extensive, clear curative instruction immediately upon learning of the second accidental viewing (see, People v Gallan, 78 A.D.2d 904). Furthermore, the viewings of defendant in handcuffs were brief and inadvertent (see, People v Harper, 47 N.Y.2d 857, 858), and not egregious denials of his rights (cf. People v Roman, 35 N.Y.2d 978, 979).
We have reviewed defendant's remaining argument concerning the prosecution's cross-examination of defendant's alibi witness and find it to be without merit (see, People v Dawson, 50 N.Y.2d 311, 318). Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Niehoff and Eiber, JJ., concur.