Opinion
November 12, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lagana, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
At no time during trial did the defendant object to testimony offered by the prosecution concerning altercations between the defendant's friends and the victim which had occurred prior to the fatal shooting which resulted in his arrest and indictment. Therefore, his contentions that the evidence was improperly admitted by the trial court are unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Oliver, 63 N.Y.2d 973). In any event, we find that the disputed testimony was relevant in that it provided necessary background information and was probative in informing the jury of the sequence of events leading up to the fatal shooting (see, People v. Ortiz, 134 A.D.2d 624).
Similarly, at trial the defendant did not object to the introduction of statements made by him to the police after his arrest, nor contest their voluntariness (see, People v. Cefaro, 23 N.Y.2d 283, 288). Further, he neither requested a charge on those issues nor excepted to the charge as given. His contention that the court erred in failing to properly instruct the jury, therefore, also was not preserved for appellate review (see, People v. Berkman, 124 A.D.2d 590, 591-592).
Finally, there is no basis on which to remit the case for resentencing, as there were no mitigating circumstances which would warrant sentencing the defendant as a youthful offender (see, CPL 720.10). Bracken, J.P., Harwood, Eiber and O'Brien, JJ., concur.