Opinion
November 26, 1990
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Goodman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the People failed to prove that he possessed the weapon outside his place of business is not preserved for appellate review as he failed to specifically raise this issue in his motion for a trial order of dismissal (see, People v. Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858; People v. Lyons, 154 A.D.2d 715). In any event, we find that the People met their burden of proof that the possession did not take place in the defendant's home or place of business (see, People v. Rodriguez, 68 N.Y.2d 674; Penal Law § 265.02), as he was in possession of the weapon while driving a vehicle (see, People v. Francis, 45 A.D.2d 431, affd. 38 N.Y.2d 150; People v. Abbatiello, 129 Misc.2d 831). The defendant's contention that the jury should have been given an expanded instruction on the issue of whether his vehicle constituted a place of business is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Holzer, 52 N.Y.2d 947). In any event, the contention is without merit, since it was sufficient under the circumstances of this case for the court to instruct the jury that the People must prove that the possession was not in the defendant's home or place of business.
The court did not err in precluding the defense counsel from questioning the arresting officer about the defendant's statement that the weapon found on his person was registered in Florida. The Florida registration had no bearing on whether the defendant's possession of the weapon was lawful in New York. Contrary to the defendant's contention, the court's ruling did not deprive him of a crucial defense. Harwood, J.P., Balletta, Miller and O'Brien, JJ., concur.