Opinion
February 26, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Elbert Hinkson, J.).
Defendant's objection to the sufficiency of the grand jury proceedings was properly preserved, as the trial court ruled on the specific issue now raised by defendant. (CPL 470.05.) The present claim is not legally cognizable since legally sufficient evidence was adduced at trial (People v Alexander, 136 A.D.2d 332). Where testimony is submitted to the grand jury by means of videotape, we find no error in the prosecutor's administering the oath (CPL 190.32 [e]), as contrasted to the situation where a witness personally appears before the grand jury (CPL 190.25; compare, People v Rivers, 145 A.D.2d 319, lv denied 73 N.Y.2d 981).
Defendant's remaining contentions relating to the prosecutor's comments on summation are unpreserved, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.