Opinion
January 31, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Insofar as the defendant contends that certain aspects of an expert's testimony constituted improper bolstering of the complainant's testimony or otherwise invaded the fact-finding province of the jury, the claims are unpreserved for appellate review and we decline to address them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Naranjo, 194 A.D.2d 747).
The defendant's contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel based on the defense counsel's failure to make objections during certain portions of the trial is without merit (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137). Inasmuch as the defendant's remaining claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are premised on facts dehors the record, they are beyond review on direct appeal.
A fair reading of the sentence minutes does not support the defendant's contention that the sentencing court improperly took into consideration past uncharged crimes in imposing sentence (see, People v. Carroll, 181 A.D.2d 904; People v. Restrepo, 165 A.D.2d 838). Moreover, we find that the defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., O'Brien, Ritter and Altman, JJ., concur.