Opinion
June 11, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (G. Aronin, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant contends that his videotaped statement, made to an Assistant District Attorney after having been advised of and having waived his Miranda rights (see, Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436), should have been suppressed because it was part of a continuous interrogation which began hours earlier when he allegedly made a statement to law enforcement officials before having waived his Miranda rights (see generally, People v Chapple, 38 N.Y.2d 112). This contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Kern, 149 A.D.2d 187, 219, affd 75 N.Y.2d 638), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
Similarly unpreserved for appellate review are the defendant's contentions regarding the court's charge to the jury (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Thomas, 50 N.Y.2d 467), and, under the circumstances, reversal in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction on those grounds is also unwarranted. Thompson, J.P., Brown, Lawrence and Eiber, JJ., concur.