Opinion
December 11, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Browne, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contentions on appeal are largely unpreserved for review and, to the extent that they are unpreserved, we decline to address them in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.05; People v Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 22; People v Ford, 66 N.Y.2d 428, 441; People v Jones, 173 A.D.2d 487).
The defendant's contentions that are preserved for review are either without merit (see, e.g., People v Autry, 75 N.Y.2d 836, 838; People v Huertas, 75 N.Y.2d 487, 493; People v Hill, 212 A.D.2d 1063; People v Hill, 209 A.D.2d 224; People v Celestino, 201 A.D.2d 91, 97; People v Jones, 200 A.D.2d 441; People v Candelario, 198 A.D.2d 512, 513; People v Louis, 192 A.D.2d 558; People v Graziano, 151 A.D.2d 775), or do not warrant reversal in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, People v Schaeffer, 56 N.Y.2d 448, 455; People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230). Ritter, J.P., Altman, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.