Opinion
November 1, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the slight probative value to be accorded evidence of flight is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Ramos, 166 A.D.2d 468; People v Yaghnam, 135 A.D.2d 763). In any event, while the trial court should have issued an appropriate limiting instruction (see, People v Yazum, 13 N.Y.2d 302; People v Yaghnam, supra), we decline to reverse on this ground in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction since the evidence of the defendant's guilt was overwhelming (see, People v Yaghnam, supra; People v Montemurro, 125 A.D.2d 605).
The defendant's contention that he was prejudiced by the prosecutor's summation is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Balls, 69 N.Y.2d 641). In any event, we find that the prosecutor's summation did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Roopchand, 107 A.D.2d 35, affd 65 N.Y.2d 837).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Thompson, J.P., Miller, Lawrence and Copertino, JJ., concur.