Opinion
Submitted March 9, 2000.
April 24, 2000.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Finnegan, J.), rendered August 19, 1997, convicting him of kidnapping in the first degree (three counts), burglary in the first degree, robbery in the first degree (two counts), and unlawful imprisonment in the second degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ronna Gordon-Galchus, Bayside, N.Y., for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, N.Y. (John M. Castellano, Sharon Y. Brodt, and Kathleen O'Leary of counsel), for respondent.
FRED T. SANTUCCI, J.P., DANIEL W. JOY, THOMAS R. SULLIVAN, MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, JJ.
DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that reversal is required by the trial court's alleged denigration of defense counsel and demonstration of favoritism toward the prosecution is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245 ). In any event, the claim is without merit. While the trial court criticized defense counsel's conduct in front of the jury and made some comments that were less than favorable, the court's actions were provoked by the defense counsel's persistent misconduct (see,People v. Gonzalez, 38 N.Y.2d 208, 210 ; People v. Schneider, 100 A.D.2d 733 ). Moreover, the court also made some comments that were unfavorable to the prosecutor. Although admonitions of counsel should be made outside of the hearing of the jury to maintain an aura of impartiality, reversal is not warranted where admonitions were directed to both the defense counsel and the prosecutor (see,People v. Cuba, 154 A.D.2d 703, 704 ; People v. Vargas, 150 A.D.2d 513 ;People v. Jordan, 138 A.D.2d 407 ). Additionally, any potential prejudice to the defendant was minimized by the trial court's instructions to the jury advising it that the court had no opinion concerning the case (see, People v. Cuba, supra, at 704).
The sentence imposed 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.