Opinion
May 28, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Frank Torres, J.).
Defendants claim that the court erred in not specifically charging the jury to consider the evidence on each count of robbery separately is unpreserved, since defendant never requested such a charge at trial, and we decline to review the claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review defendants claim, we would find it to be without merit, since the courts charge as a whole adequately apprised the jury of this principle, as applicable to the circumstances of the case.
Defendants challenge to the prosecutors remarks to the jury on summation, wherein he compared the evidence in the two counts of robbery, is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the prosecutor was entitled to comment on those similarities stemming from defendants sufficiently unique modus operandi ( see, People v. Gonzalez, 188 A.D.2d 364), which rendered the two incidents joinable pursuant to CPL 200.20 (2) (b) as well as CPL 200.20 (2) (c).
We have considered defendants other claims, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Lerner, P. J., Ellerin, Rubin, Tom and Andrias, JJ.