Judgment affirmed.
The defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by misconduct on the part of the prosecutor during his cross-examination of defendant's witnesses and during summation. During the cross-examination of two witnesses, the prosecutor asked each of them questions which were extraneous to the case. With respect to the first witness defendant raised no objection. On the cross-examination of the other witness an objection was sustained on the basis of hearsay, but when the question was rephrased there was no objection. Defendant did not seek additional instructions from the court or seek a mistrial. Therefore it may be deemed that the court cured the error to defendant's satisfaction ( People v. Jalah, 107 A.D.2d 762).
Defendant's argument with respect to errors in the summation is without substance. When the phrase objected to is read in its entirety it does not support defendant's argument.
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find that there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that there had been a robbery and an attempted robbery ( see, People v Pena, 50 N.Y.2d 400, cert denied 449 U.S. 1087). Mangano, J.P., Thompson, O'Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.