Opinion
September 23, 1985
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Groh, J.).
Judgment affirmed, insofar as appealed from.
Defendant's claims of error with respect to the court's final charge and supplemental instructions, most of which have not been preserved for appellate review as a matter of law, do not warrant reversal. Though less than exemplary, the final charge and supplementary instructions did not prejudice defendant's right to a fair trial.
Furthermore, defendant's contention that the sentence imposed for his conviction of felony murder is "unduly harsh" and should be reduced "[i]n the interests of justice" is unpersuasive. The sentencing Judge neither abused his discretion nor failed to observe sentencing principles (People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80), and, in view of defendant's rather extensive criminal record and the particularly brutal nature of the instant offense, we are not inclined to impose a different sentence (see, People v Suitte, supra; see also, People v Roman, 84 A.D.2d 851).
Finally, defendant's pro se contention has not been preserved for appellate review and, in any event, is without merit (cf. People v Robertson, 12 N.Y.2d 355). Lazer, J.P., O'Connor, Weinstein and Niehoff, JJ., concur.