Opinion
May 20, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We reject the defendant's contention that he was denied his right to be present during off-the-record, side-bar discussions with prospective jurors which involved inquiry into the jurors' own, family members', or friends' prior involvement with the police ( see, People v. Antommarchi, 80 N.Y.2d 247). Even though the subject side-bar discussions centered exclusively upon the prospective jurors' background and ability to weigh the evidence objectively, People v. Antommarchi is inapplicable to this case inasmuch as jury selection occurred prior to October 27, 1992, the date People v. Antommarchi was decided ( see, People v Mitchell, 80 N.Y.2d 519, 529; People v. Jones, 215 A.D.2d 501).
The defendant's contention that the People failed to establish that he knowingly possessed an excess of two ounces of cocaine is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, People v. Noble, 86 N.Y.2d 814; People v. Logan, 74 N.Y.2d 859, 860; People v. Okehoffurum, 201 A.D.2d 508). The defendant's additional contention that the People failed to present legally sufficient evidence to corroborate the accomplices' testimony is also unpreserved for appellate review ( see, People v. Logan, supra; People v. Blaho, 221 A.D.2d 650). We decline to reach these issues in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we find that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive ( see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05) or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Hart, Goldstein and McGinity, JJ., concur.