at 644, 826 N.Y.S.2d 163, 859 N.E.2d 902 ). The defendant's contention that the County Court's Sandoval ruling (seePeople v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413 ) deprived her of her constitutional right to a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review, as she did not raise any constitutional challenge to the Sandoval ruling before the County Court (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Grant, 7 N.Y.3d 421, 424, 823 N.Y.S.2d 757, 857 N.E.2d 52 ; People v. Wheelings, 137 A.D.3d 1310, 1311, 28 N.Y.S.3d 435 ). The defendant's further contention that the court abused its discretion in its Sandoval ruling is without merit.
Judge: Decision Reported Below: 2d Dept: 137 AD3d 1310 (Kings)
In addition, on cross-examination, defense counsel elicited testimony demonstrating the absence of any forensic evidence linking the defendant to the subject revolver and the absence of any ballistic evidence demonstrating when that revolver was last discharged, and that the police recovered the subject revolver from underneath a vehicle, whereas the defendant told the police that he had discarded his revolver while fleeing through "a backyard." The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling (seePeople v. Sandoval , 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413 ) deprived him of his constitutional right to a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review, as he did not raise any constitutional challenge to the Sandoval ruling before the court (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Wheelings , 137 A.D.3d 1310, 1311, 28 N.Y.S.3d 435 ). In any event, the court's Sandoval ruling did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling (seePeople v. Sandoval , 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413 ) deprived him of his constitutional right to a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review, as he did not raise any constitutional challenge to the Sandoval ruling before the court (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Wheelings , 137 A.D.3d 1310, 1311, 28 N.Y.S.3d 435 ). In any event, the court's Sandoval ruling did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial.
ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed. The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling (seePeople v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413 ) deprived him of his constitutional right to a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review, as he did not raise any constitutional challenge to the Sandoval ruling before the trial court (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Wheelings, 137 A.D.3d 1310, 1311, 28 N.Y.S.3d 435 [citation omitted] ). In any event, the court's Sandoval ruling did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial.
ORDERED that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed. The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court's Sandoval ruling (seePeople v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371, 357 N.Y.S.2d 849, 314 N.E.2d 413 ) deprived him of his constitutional right to a fair trial is unpreserved for appellate review, as he did not raise any constitutional challenge to the Sandoval ruling before the trial court (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Wheelings, 137 A.D.3d 1310, 1311, 28 N.Y.S.3d 435 ). In any event, the court's Sandoval ruling was not an improvident exercise of discretion.