Opinion
November 4, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kreindler, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the court erred in admitting into evidence testimony of the victim's widow regarding their family and employment circumstances since it was elicited for the purpose of seeking the jurors' admiration for the victim and sympathy for his family. The defendant's objection to the receipt of that evidence did not preserve his claim for appellate review, since the objection did not specifically question its admissibility upon that ground (see, CPL 470.05; People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245; People v. Martinez, 171 A.D.2d 760). We decline to exercise our interest of justice jurisdiction to review the claim.
Finally, the sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Thompson, J.P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Miller, JJ., concur.