Opinion
April 27, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Slavin, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the court erred in its marshaling of the evidence. However, since the defendant failed to object to the curative instruction given by the court on this issue, and failed to request any additional instruction, his claim is unpreserved for appellate review (People v Luperena, 159 A.D.2d 727; People v Freeman, 149 A.D.2d 727).
The defendant also made no objection at trial to the court's charge to the jury that no adverse inference could be drawn based upon his failure to testify. His claim that the court failed to separately mention him during its charge on this issue is therefore unpreserved for appellate review (People v Pugliese, 131 A.D.2d 789). Similarly unpreserved for appellate review is the defendant's claim that the court failed to charge the jurors that they were to consider the evidence separately as to each defendant (People v Roldos, 161 A.D.2d 610). Under the circumstances of this case, we decline to review these claims in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Eiber, J.P., O'Brien, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.