Opinion
February 19, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
None of the allegations of error raised by the defendant on appeal are preserved for appellate review. Only one was the subject of an objection at trial, but that was on a ground other than that asserted on appeal (see, People v Balls, 69 N.Y.2d 641; People v Dekle, 56 N.Y.2d 835) and the remainder drew no objections at all. Accordingly, none of the alleged errors presently complained of is properly raised as the trial court was never given an opportunity to correct these alleged errors (CPL 470.05; see, People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, none of the contentions advanced on appeal would warrant reversal.
In this regard, we would merely note that the defendant's assertions that the trial court improperly interjected itself into the proceedings or conducted itself in a biased manner are clearly unfounded on this record. The trial court exhibited appropriate restraint (compare, People v Watts, 159 A.D.2d 740) and did nothing to improperly influence the jury's deliberations (see, People v Hernandez, 137 A.D.2d 560). Accordingly, even if the defendant had preserved these allegations by registering specific objections at trial (see, People v Charleston, 56 N.Y.2d 886), reversal would be unwarranted. Kooper, J.P., Sullivan, Miller and O'Brien, JJ., concur.