Opinion
June 8, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Egitto, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that it was error for the court to allow into evidence the blood-stained money taken from him upon his arrest. We disagree. The People made an adequate showing connecting the defendant, the money, and the crimes (see, People v. Mirenda, 23 N.Y.2d 439; People v. Martinez, 115 A.D.2d 665). Uncertainties as to whether the blood drops found on the money belonged to the victim goes to their evidentiary weight and not to their admissibility (see, People v. Mirenda, supra; People v Roldos, 161 A.D.2d 610).
The defendant's contention that the verdict sheet submitted to the jury was improper (see, People v. Nimmons, 72 N.Y.2d 830) is not preserved for appellate review, since he failed to object to its submission (see, People v. Belgrave, 181 A.D.2d 738; People v Andrews, 178 A.D.2d 482; People v. Mason, 176 A.D.2d 358; People v Lugo, 150 A.D.2d 502; People v. Mathis, 150 A.D.2d 613). We decline to review the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, People v. Belgrave, supra; People v. Mathis, supra; People v. Andrews, supra).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Bracken, Sullivan and Santucci, JJ., concur.