Opinion
October 1, 1993
Appeal from the Oneida County Court, Merrell, J.
Present — Callahan, J.P., Pine, Lawton, Boomer and Davis, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that County Court's unbalanced interested witness charge mandates reversal. Because no objection was made to that charge, defendant has failed to preserve his contention for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Cheney, 178 A.D.2d 1007, 1008, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 945), and we decline to consider it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15). Defendant has also failed to preserve for our review his contention that prosecutorial misconduct on summation deprived him of a fair trial (see, CPL 470.05; People v Dawson, 50 N.Y.2d 311, 324). In any event, the misconduct was not so egregious that defendant was deprived of a fair trial (see, People v. Sanzotta, 191 A.D.2d 1032; People v. Roopchand, 107 A.D.2d 35, affd 65 N.Y.2d 837; People v. Plant, 138 A.D.2d 968, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 1031).
We have reviewed defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit.