Opinion
February 3, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
On appeal from the judgment rendered under Indictment No. 607/88, the defendant contends that the trial court's instructions on identification and flight were improper. However, these claims are unpreserved for appellate review because the defendant failed to register objections to those portions of the charge at the time of trial (see, CPL 470.05; People v Moya, 115 A.D.2d 769; People v. Yaghnam, 135 A.D.2d 763). In any event, having examined those instructions, we conclude that reversal in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction is not warranted under the circumstances of this case.
In light of our determination, we need not address the defendant's contention that a reversal of the judgment rendered upon Indictment No. 607/88 would require reversal of the judgment rendered upon Indictment No. 7702/87. Balletta, J.P., Miller, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.