Court Opinion

ID: 9806106
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 18:40:20.172486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:57:11.635898
License: Public Domain

Appeals by defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ingram, J.), rendered January 26, 2012, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, resisting arrest, and obstructing governmental administration in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) an amended sentence of the same court imposed February 8, 2012.
Ordered that the judgment and the amended sentence are affirmed.
The defendant’s current challenges to certain remarks made by the prosecutor during the trial are unpreserved for appel*894late review, as the defendant failed to raise these specific arguments by timely objections (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Romero, 7 NY3d 911, 912 [2006]; People v King, 119 AD3d 819, 820 [2014]; People v Edwards, 118 AD3d 909, 910 [2014]; People v Floyd, 97 AD3d 837 [2012]), and we decline to reach these issues in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). While the defendant did object to the prosecutor’s comment regarding the application of the “falsus in uno” principle to the defendant’s testimony, that objection was based on a ground different from the one now advanced by the defendant, and the trial court adequately addressed the objection by properly instructing the jury regarding the “falsus in uno” principle and its applicability to all witnesses.
Likewise, the defendant’s contention that his right of confrontation was violated when the trial court permitted two undercover police officers to testify anonymously at trial is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Smith, 26 AD3d 396 [2006]; People v Montoya, 13 AD3d 557, 558 [2004]; People v Alvarez, 278 AD2d 332, 333 [2000]), and we decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).
The sentence imposed, as amended, was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Mastro, J.P., Roman and Maltese, JJ., concur.