Opinion
April 13, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lipp, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
We find no merit to the defendant's claims of prosecutorial misconduct, consisting, in the main, of alleged improper cross-examination and prejudicial comments in summation. Most of the defendant's claims were not properly preserved for appellate review (see, People v Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951, 953; People v Hawthorne, 175 A.D.2d 880; People v Lewis, 175 A.D.2d 885; People v Mack, 172 A.D.2d 629). In any event, we find that the instances of alleged misconduct did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396; People v Roopchand, 107 A.D.2d 35, 36, affd 65 N.Y.2d 837).
The defendant contends that certain sua sponte rulings by the trial court which limited cross-examination by the defense counsel, as well as the trial court's interruption of the defense witness to ask questions, deprived him of a fair trial. However, the defendant did not object to these alleged errors and his argument is therefore not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Charleston, 56 N.Y.2d 886; People v Whitehead, 155 A.D.2d 567; People v Vargas, 150 A.D.2d 513). In any event, the court in a trial of a criminal action is permitted to raise matters on its own initiative in order to elicit significant facts, clarify or enlighten an issue, or facilitate the orderly and expeditious progress of the trial (see, People v Mendes, 3 N.Y.2d 120, 121). We find that the challenged intervention by the trial court was appropriate and neither manifested a bias against the defendant nor deprived the defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Tucker, 140 A.D.2d 887, 891; People v Congilaro, 60 A.D.2d 442, 456-457).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Balletta, Lawrence and Santucci, JJ., concur.