Opinion
March 5, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Felice K. Shea, J.).
Defendant's arguments that he was prejudiced by the introduction of background testimony and the court's identification charge are unpreserved (CPL 470.05; People v Leisner, 73 N.Y.2d 140, 147). Were we to reach them in the interest of justice, we would find that the background information did not impermissibly suggest a propensity on defendant's part to commit the crimes charged or show that he had committed other crimes. The court's extensive identification charge fairly instructed the jury on the identification question raised at the trial.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Milonas, Kupferman, Asch and Smith, JJ.