Opinion
March 30, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that reversible error took place because the prosecutor was permitted to elicit testimony that the defendant requested an attorney while being questioned by a police detective who accused him of shooting the victim.
However, since the defendant failed to object to the admission of this testimony, his claim is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05). In any event, the brief reference to the fact that the defendant invoked his right to counsel was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt ( see, People v. Palmer, 222 A.D.2d 532; People v. Douglas, 149 A.D.2d 613).
Furthermore, there is no merit to the defendant's contention that the court erred in imposing consecutive sentences for the felony murder of one victim and the robbery of the surviving complainant ( see, People v. Ramirez, 89 N.Y.2d 444, 448). In this regard, we note that contrary to the defendant's assertion, the court adequately instructed the jury that the robbery of the deceased victim was the felony underlying the felony murder charge.
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see, People v. Delgado, 80 N.Y.2d 780; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
Joy, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.