Opinion
September 25, 1997
Appeal from Supreme Court, Bronx County (Gerald Sheindlin, J., on consolidation and severance motions; Steven Lloyd Barrett, J., at jury trial and sentence).
The charges were properly consolidated under CPL 200.20 (2) (b), a ground argued before the motion court. Once so consolidated, the motion court lacked statutory authority to sever ( People v. Bongarzone, 69 N.Y.2d 892, 895). In any event, we find that the denial of severance did not result in any prejudice to defendant.
By failing to object, or by making only generalized objections and failing to request further relief after objections were sustained, defendant has failed to preserve his current claims regarding various comments made by the prosecutor in summation, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review them, we would find that there was no pattern of inflammatory remarks or egregious conduct on the part of the prosecutor, and no basis for reversal ( People v. D'Alessandro, 184 A.D.2d 114, 118-119, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 884).
Defendant's challenge to the court's charge to the jury regarding evaluation of interested witness testimony is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find that the instruction, when viewed as a whole, was appropriately neutral and conveyed the applicable legal principles.
We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Ellerin, Williams, Tom and Colabella, JJ.