Opinion
June 15, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Beldock, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that reversible error took place by reason of the trial court's failure to give an alibi charge has not been preserved for appellate review since the defendant neither requested such a charge nor objected to the jury charge on this basis (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Howard, 153 A.D.2d 903). Moreover, we are not inclined to reach this issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, CPL 470.15 [c]) in light of the strong evidence of the defendant's guilt and the thorough instructions given by the trial court that the defendant's guilt had to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Dozier, 131 A.D.2d 587; People v Perez, 127 A.D.2d 707).
Also unpreserved for appellate review is the defendant's allegation that he was deprived of a fair trial based upon alleged instances of prosecutorial misconduct (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). We similarly decline to reach this issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Rosenblatt, J.P., Miller, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.