Opinion
July 1, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ramirez, J.).
Judgment affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, as we must since we are reviewing the legal sufficiency of the evidence ( People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), the prosecution established defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Contrary to defendant's contention, the identification procedure employed by the police was not suggestive ( see, People v. Morales, 37 N.Y.2d 262, 271). Defendant's claim that he was denied a fair trial because of the court's ruling on his Sandoval motion is similarly without merit ( see, People v Rhodes, 96 A.D.2d 565).
Defendant also contends that the second felony offender provisions are unconstitutional. However, this identical issue has previously been rejected ( see, e.g., People v. Morse, 62 N.Y.2d 205; People v. Thompson, 105 A.D.2d 762; People v. Rembert, 105 A.D.2d 717), and defendant has not offered any compelling reasons to justify departing from this ruling.
As no objection was raised to the prosecutor's summation and the court's charge during trial, defendant has not preserved these issues for review as a matter of law and we decline to review them in the interest of justice.
We have reviewed the other issues raised by defendant and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Brown, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.