Opinion
November 20, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on evaluating flight as evidence of consciousness of guilt is unpreserved for appellate review. The defendant never requested such a charge or objected to the court's failure to so charge (see, CPL 470.05; People v McKenzie, 67 N.Y.2d 695, 697; People v Leitzsey, 173 A.D.2d 488; People v Shepherd, 176 A.D.2d 369, 370; People v Rosa, 176 A.D.2d 187, 188). In any event, the defendant's claim is without merit.
The evidence of flight was not unduly emphasized in the prosecutor's summation and the evidence of the defendant's guilt of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree was overwhelming. Therefore, any error was clearly harmless (see, People v Rodriguez, 135 A.D.2d 586, 587; People v Jones, 104 A.D.2d 826, 827). Sullivan, J.P., Thompson, Hart and Goldstein, JJ., concur.