Opinion
October 23, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Egitto, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenges to various remarks made by the prosecutor during trial and summation are unpreserved for appellate review inasmuch as no objections were raised to any of the comments in question (see, CPL 470.05; People v Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858; People v. Nuccie, 57 N.Y.2d 818; People v. Haramura, 186 A.D.2d 676; People v. Sansevero, 185 A.D.2d 256; People v Okon, 184 A.D.2d 664).
Moreover, the trial court did not err in limiting the defendant's cross-examination of the People's witness regarding the physical appearance of the defendant's brother. Even though a defendant has a right to introduce evidence that a person other than himself committed the crime (see, Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284), the evidence must do more than raise a mere suspicion that another person committed the crime. There must be a clear link between the third party and the crime (see, People v. Austin, 112 A.D.2d 242; People v. Aulet, 111 A.D.2d 822; see also, Greenfield v. People, 85 N.Y. 75, 90; People v. Brown, 133 A.D.2d 773, 774). Since the defense counsel failed to discharge his burden of making a specific offer of proof as to the admissibility of the testimony after the People's objections thereto, the court's ruling was proper (see, Fisch, New York Evidence § 22, at 14 [2d ed]; People v. Zambrano, 114 A.D.2d 872; People v. Austin, supra, at 243).
The defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Sullivan, J.P., Miller, Copertino and Goldstein, JJ., concur.