Opinion
March 9, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the court imposed a shorter time limit upon his counsel than was imposed upon the prosecutor during the third round of voir dire ( see, CPL 470.05). In any event, the defendant presented no basis to support his conclusion that his counsel was arbitrarily given less time than the prosecutor in which to question prospective jurors.
The defendant's sentence was not excessive ( see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
Rosenblatt, J. P., Ritter, Copertino and Goldstein, JJ., concur.