Opinion
July 28, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Sharpe, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
The defendant argues for the first time on appeal that the trial court failed to advise the jurors that they were free to disregard the statutory presumption applicable to criminal possession of stolen property regarding a person who knowingly possesses property (Penal Law § 165.55). As the defendant took no exception to the charge, he failed to preserve the contention for appellate review as a matter of law (see, People v Thomas, 50 N.Y.2d 467, 471; People v De Mauro, 48 N.Y.2d 892, 893). In any event, the record indicates that the court properly informed the jury several times that the statutory presumption regarding a person who knowingly possesses stolen property is rebuttable (see, People v Simmons, 32 N.Y.2d 250, 253; People v Bradley, 99 A.D.2d 513). Weinstein, J.P., Niehoff, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.