Opinion
October 3, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lombardo, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
At trial, the prosecutor placed the defendant in the position of having to accuse the police witnesses of perjury in order to maintain his innocence. This tactic, while improper (see, e.g., People v Santiago, 78 A.D.2d 666; People v Perez, 69 A.D.2d 891), drew no objection from defense counsel and is thus beyond the scope of review as a matter of law (see, CPL 470.05). Similarly, defense counsel's unelaborated objection to certain remarks made by the prosecutor during his summation was insufficient to preserve any question of law for appellate review (see, People v Balls, 69 N.Y.2d 641; People v Nuccio, 57 N.Y.2d 818). Even if the defendant's allegations of prosecutorial misconduct had been properly preserved for review, we would find reversal to be unwarranted (see, People v Roopchand, 65 N.Y.2d 837). The defendant's contention regarding the trial court's charge is likewise unpreserved. The defendant's trial was fundamentally fair and his guilt was proven beyond any doubt. Reversal of the judgment under review in the interest of justice is not warranted. Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Spatt, JJ., concur.