Opinion
February 16, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schneier, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant argues that the court erred in admitting certain statements because there was not a pronounced break between those statements and the tainted statements which were ruled inadmissible. However, the defendant's contention is not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Martin, 50 N.Y.2d 1029; People v Smith, 158 A.D.2d 488) and we decline to address the contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Sullivan, J.P., O'Brien, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.