Opinion
April 19, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The issue of the appropriateness of the court's use of illustrative examples of ownership, actual possession, and constructive possession during its charge to the jury has not been preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Ford, 66 N.Y.2d 428, 437). Although the court's lengthy discussion of constructive possession was needless and irrelevant in this case of actual possession, the illustrative examples were neither coercive nor diversionary, nor minimized the seriousness of the task of the jury (see, People v Wright, 187 A.D.2d 1016; People v Ceballos, 136 A.D.2d 719, 720; People v Grant, 132 A.D.2d 619, 620). Accordingly, we find the defendant's contentions to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Rosenblatt, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.