Opinion
Decided February 5, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Clifford Scott, J.).
Defendant did not preserve his present claims of error regarding the trial court's preliminary instructions to the jury and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. We reject defendant's argument that preservation was unnecessary (see, People v. Agramonte, 87 N.Y.2d 765). In any event, there is no merit to defendant's claim that a portion of the court's preliminary charge may have suggested unauthorized visits to the crime scene (People v. Mays, 232 A.D.2d 332, lv denied 89 N.Y.2d 926; People v. Goins, 215 A.D.2d 111, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 735).
The court's summary denial of defendant's CPL 440.10 (1) (g) motion, claiming newly discovered evidence, was appropriate (see, CPL 440.30; People v. Rodriguez, 243 A.D.2d 279).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be unpreserved and without merit.
Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Wallach, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.