Opinion
December 1, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin Weissberg, J.).
There is no merit to defendant's contention that he was deprived of a fair trial when the prosecutor peremptorily challenged four prospective black jurors. The record reveals that the prosecution articulated adequate race neutral explanations for its challenge to these jurors (People v Roberts, 208 A.D.2d 410; see, People v Doran, 195 A.D.2d 364). The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in summarily denying defense counsel's mid-trial request for a suppression hearing in light of defense counsel's failure to offer an adequate explanation as to why his request for a suppression hearing could not have been made earlier (CPL 255.20; People v Anderson, 201 A.D.2d 658, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 868). Defendant's claim of improper bolstering concerning the prosecutor's use of the cooperation agreements of two witnesses is not preserved for appellate review as a matter of law, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice (People v Clarke, 81 N.Y.2d 777). In any event, the prosecutor properly elicited the terms of the agreements of the cooperating witnesses to enable the jury to assess the witnesses' credibility (People v Rivera, 155 A.D.2d 941, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 817; see, People v Burke, 128 A.D.2d 542, affd 72 N.Y.2d 833).
Defendant's failure to object to the court's "two inference" charge constitutes a waiver of this claim for appellate review as a matter of law (People v Evans, 192 A.D.2d 337, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1072), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review, we would find that the court's charge, as a whole, conveyed the appropriate burden of proof and did not suggest defendant could be convicted on proof less than beyond a reasonable doubt.
Finally, we do not perceive any abuse of discretion by the sentencing court.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.