Opinion
July 22, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Mary Davis, J.).
Defendant's trial counsel never voiced any objection concerning any of the arresting officer's testimony pertaining to his observations of defendant prior to approaching with his partner and thus the matter is not preserved for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05), and we decline to review in the interest of justice. Were we to review, we would find the claim to be without merit, since the testimony was admissible to complete the narrative and to explain to the jury the officers' presence at the scene and their reasons for approaching defendant (see, People v. Hernandez, 139 A.D.2d 472, 477, lv denied 72 N.Y.2d 957). Contrary to defendant's contention, the testimony did not portray him as a person having a propensity to commit crimes. Similarly, defendant failed to raise any objection concerning the prosecutor's summation remarks. Were we to review the claim, we would note that the remarks complained of did not deprive defendant of a fair trial.
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. (See, 195 A.D.2d 420 [decided herewith].)
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Ross, Kassel and Nardelli, JJ.