Opinion
November 30, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Leahy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the record as a whole, we conclude that the defendant received a fair trial. The direct examination of the arresting officer elicited no improper information. Just as the testimony of a police officer that he conducted an investigation which ultimately focused on the defendant is proper, testimony indicating that the original investigating officer ultimately focused on the defendant as a suspect is similarly proper. Such testimony cannot be equated with police testimony improperly implying that a witness who was not brought to testify did in fact implicate the defendant, as occurred in People v. Melendez ( 55 N.Y.2d 445) and People v. Tufano ( 69 A.D.2d 826). The limited participation of the trial court in the cross-examination of a defense witness was done in the interest of facilitating the process of the trial and forestalling any equivocal testimony by the witness and was, therefore, entirely appropriate (see, People v. Yut Wai Tom, 53 N.Y.2d 44, 55; People v. Moulton, 43 N.Y.2d 944, 945).
Finally, the contention that the jury charge contained an error was not preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05) and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Bracken, J.P., Brown, Weinstein and Spatt, JJ., concur.