ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. The defendant's contention that the accusatory instrument did not provide sufficient notice as to when the crimes were allegedly committed is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Gargano, 222 A.D.2d 694, 695, 636 N.Y.S.2d 350 ; People v. Bass, 179 A.D.2d 568, 569, 579 N.Y.S.2d 55 ). In any event, taking into consideration all of the relevant circumstances (see People v. Watt, 81 N.Y.2d 772, 774–775, 593 N.Y.S.2d 782, 609 N.E.2d 135 ), the time period of four months for the crimes charged in the accusatory instrument was not so lengthy as to require dismissal (see People v. O'Keefe, 276 A.D.2d 647, 714 N.Y.S.2d 514 ; People v. Bolden, 194 A.D.2d 834, 598 N.Y.S.2d 603 ).

The defendant's contention that the accusatory instrument did not provide sufficient notice as to when the crimes were allegedly committed is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Gargano, 222 AD2d 694, 695; People v Bass, 179 AD2d 568, 569). In any event, taking into consideration all of the relevant circumstances (see People v Watt, 81 NY2d 772, 774-775), the time period of four months for the crimes charged in the accusatory instrument was not so lengthy as to require dismissal (see People v O'Keefe, 276 AD2d 647; People v Bolden, 194 AD2d 834).

Ordered that the judgments and order are affirmed. The defendant's contention that he was denied due process of law because the indictments alleged the time when most of the crimes charged occurred in approximate terms, such as "on or about" a particular month, is not preserved for appellate review (see, People v Weldon, 191 A.D.2d 662; People v Bass, 179 A.D.2d 568). In any event, the periods of time alleged in the indictments were not so lengthy that it was virtually impossible for the defendant to answer charges and prepare an adequate defense and not so excessive as to be unreasonable under the circumstances (see, People v Watt, 192 A.D.2d 65, affd 84 N.Y.2d 948; People v Lopez, 175 A.D.2d 267; see also, People v Bolden, 194 A.D.2d 834; People v Khatib, 166 A.D.2d 668).

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Phylis Skloot Bamberger, J.). Defense counsel's omission to request a bill of particulars did not deprive defendant of effective assistance of counsel, since the 23-day time span set forth in the indictment was, in view of the tender ages of the victims, sufficient to give defendant adequate notice of the rape and sodomy charges against him (see, People v Bass, 179 A.D.2d 568, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 997; Matter of Jermaine B., 180 A.D.2d 607), and defendant's claim that counsel was otherwise ineffective is without merit (see, People v Flores, 84 N.Y.2d 184). Defendant's claim of improper interference by the trial court is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (People v Howard, 192 A.D.2d 303, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1074), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice.