Opinion
May 4, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Owens, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial by the manner in which the court marshaled the evidence in its charge is not preserved for appellate review since no objection was made to the charge on that ground (see, CPL 470.05; People v. McDonald, 144 A.D.2d 701, 702). In any event, we do not find the court's failure to refer to the testimony brought out on cross-examination by defense counsel deprived the defendant of a fair trial (see, People v. Holton, 160 A.D.2d 729, 730; People v Gray, 144 A.D.2d 483, 484; People v. Little, 98 A.D.2d 752, 753, affd 62 N.Y.2d 1020). The trial was short, the issues were simple, there were few witnesses and the defendant's position was made clear to the jury in the defense counsel's summation. Furthermore, the court advised the jurors that it had no opinion as to the resolution of the issues of fact in the case and that their recollection of the evidence controlled (see, People v. Holton, supra, at 730; People v Gray, supra, at 484; People v. McDonald, supra, at 702).
The defendant's sentence was neither unduly harsh nor excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Richardson, 172 A.D.2d 438; People v. Rodriguez, 168 A.D.2d 210). Sullivan, J.P., Balletta, Eiber and O'Brien, JJ., concur.