Opinion
October 5, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Fertig, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant claims that the trial court did not clearly instruct the jury that he could not be convicted of resisting arrest unless the arrest was authorized and that for an arrest to be authorized, it must be based on probable cause. Since the defendant neither objected to the charge as given on this ground, nor requested curative instructions, his claim is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, we find the claim to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Balletta and Lawrence, JJ., concur.