Opinion
December 1, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, Angela Mazzarelli, J.
Defendant did not object to any of the complainant's testimony he now claims was erroneously admitted, and thus did not preserve the issue for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05). In any event, the complainant's testimony of his attempts to secure police assistance served to provide a coherent narrative of the hurried events tracing defendant and the complainant from the scene of the encounter to another location, and to explain the police stop, frisk, and arrest of defendant at the second location (see, People v Conyers, 160 A.D.2d 318, 319, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 786).
The jury's rejection of defendant's testimony regarding the innocent nature of his encounter with the complainant is supported by the record and will not be disturbed by this Court (see, People v Fonte, 159 A.D.2d 346, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 734).
We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Wallach, Kupferman and Kassal, JJ.