Opinion
October 7, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Pesce, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant moved for a mistrial upon discovering that the undercover officer involved in this matter was present in the courtroom during a portion of the cross-examination of the arresting officer. We find that the denial of the defendant's motion was a proper exercise of the court's discretion (see, People v. Ortiz, 54 N.Y.2d 288). No request was made for the exclusion of witnesses before the undercover officer entered the courtroom. In any event, the defendant has failed to show any prejudice, as the court determined that the undercover officer was present for only about five minutes of the arresting officer's testimony (cf., People v. Leggett, 55 A.D.2d 990; People v. M.J., 42 A.D.2d 717; People v. Felder, 39 A.D.2d 373, affd 32 N.Y.2d 747, appeal dismissed 414 U.S. 948).
The defendant's remaining contentions concerning the court's charge are unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Nuccie, 57 N.Y.2d 818; People v. Burns, 133 A.D.2d 642; People v. Irazarry, 114 A.D.2d 1041), and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Rosenblatt and O'Brien, JJ., concur.