Opinion
October 2, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Heller, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant has failed to show how the trial court's comments during the course of the trial prejudiced him. As the court rebuked both defense counsel and the prosecution in order to control the proceedings before it, the court legitimately exercised its prerogative.
The propriety of the trial court's instruction on interested witnesses is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Moore, 149 A.D.2d 629; People v Mercado, 135 A.D.2d 661). In any event, the charge was proper. We find that the sentence imposed was not excessive given the seriousness of the crime and the defendant's extensive criminal history (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find that they are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit (see, CPL 470.05). Eiber, J.P., Harwood, Balletta and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.