Opinion
December 1, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Phylis Skloot Bamberger, J.).
Defense counsel's omission to request a bill of particulars did not deprive defendant of effective assistance of counsel, since the 23-day time span set forth in the indictment was, in view of the tender ages of the victims, sufficient to give defendant adequate notice of the rape and sodomy charges against him (see, People v Bass, 179 A.D.2d 568, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 997; Matter of Jermaine B., 180 A.D.2d 607), and defendant's claim that counsel was otherwise ineffective is without merit (see, People v Flores, 84 N.Y.2d 184).
Defendant's claim of improper interference by the trial court is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (People v Howard, 192 A.D.2d 303, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1074), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find that the court's suggestion to the prosecutor that she should reopen her direct examination, was properly made to clarify ambiguous testimony by the victims' mother (see, People v De Jesus, 42 N.Y.2d 519, 523), and that the court's participation was not otherwise an abuse of discretion.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Rosenberger, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.