Opinion
April 11, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the slight probative value to be accorded evidence of flight is unpreserved for appellate review, since he neither requested such a charge nor objected to its absence (see, CPL 470.05; People v Madera, 198 A.D.2d 235; People v Ramos, 166 A.D.2d 468; People v Yaghnam, 135 A.D.2d 763). We decline to consider the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction in view of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, People v Yaghnam, supra; People v Montemurro, 125 A.D.2d 605).
Contrary to the contention raised by the defendant in his supplemental pro se brief, we find that the sentence imposed by the court was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Copertino and Florio, JJ., concur.