Opinion
April 29, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lombardo, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
With the exception of the contention that an analogy used by the prosecutor during summation suggested to the jury that the defense was seeking to create a smokescreen to obscure the issues in the case, none of the issues raised by the defendant on appeal has been preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Nuccie, 57 N.Y.2d 818; People v Fitzgerald, 157 A.D.2d 666; People v. Andre, 152 A.D.2d 589), and, under the circumstances of this case, we decline to review those issues in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. While we do disapprove of the prosecutor's attempt during summation to liken the conduct of the defense to the pitching style of Luis Tiant in the latter stages of his career (see, People v. Ortiz, 125 A.D.2d 502), we conclude that, under the circumstances of this case, this analogy did not serve to deprive the defendant of a fair trial. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Brown and Eiber, JJ., concur.