Filed Date: 5/3/1999
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/1/2024
—Appeal by the de
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant’s contentions that the trial court erred in admitting prejudicial flight testimony and failing to instruct the jury on the use of the flight testimony or the defense of temporary lawful possession are unpreserved for appellate review. We decline to reach the issues in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Bynum, 70 NY2d 858; People v Madera, 198 AD2d 235; People v Baldwin, 170 AD2d 687; People v Sutherland, 166 AD2d 732).
The defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Altman, J. P., Goldstein, Florio and Mc-Ginity, JJ., concur.