Opinion
May 2, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Alfred Kleiman, J.).
Defendant's claim that the court should have given a circumstantial evidence charge is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law ( People v. Battle, 198 A.D.2d 112, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 802), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. If we were to review it, we would find that such a charge was not warranted since there was both direct and circumstantial evidence of defendant's guilt, the direct evidence including the police officers' observation of defendant loading stolen property into a cart and the broken locks on the basement door (supra). Similarly unpreserved is defendant's contention that the prosecutor improperly instructed the jury on circumstantial evidence during voir dire ( People v. Rodriguez, 220 A.D.2d 208, 209), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.
Defendant's contention concerning the suppression ruling is without merit.
We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Milonas, Williams, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.