Opinion
December 3, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J.).
Defendant's contention that the court's questioning of the witnesses and its rendition of a verdict 10 minutes after summations demonstrate that the court engaged in "`premature deliberations'" is unpreserved for appellate review (People v. Wilson, 243 A.D.2d 316, 317, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 1014; People v. Lloyd, 210 A.D.2d 163, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 864), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court was entitled to analyze the evidence as it unfolded (supra), and that neither the court's questioning of witnesses nor the fact that the court rendered a verdict shortly after summations establish that it engaged in premature deliberations (see, People v. Carter, 63 N.Y.2d 530, 539; People v. Jennings, 144 A.D.2d 696).
We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing.
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Milonas, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.