Opinion
June 29, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that he was denied a fair trial as a result of the trial court's interruptions and interjections into the proceedings is unpreserved for appellate review inasmuch as no objections thereto were made during the course of the trial (see, People v. Jusino, 170 A.D.2d 622; People v. Watts, 159 A.D.2d 740). In any event, although the trial court could have exercised greater restraint (see, People v. Watts, supra), his interjections into the trial were generally evenhanded, directed at both the prosecution and the defense (see, People v. Jordan, 138 A.D.2d 407) and served to clarify potentially confusing testimony elicited during this multiple-defendant trial (see, People v. Watts, supra). The court's interruptions were not so frequent (cf., People v. Mees, 47 N.Y.2d 997) or disparaging of the defense (cf., People v. Yut Wai Tom, 53 N.Y.2d 44), as to rise to such a level as to deny the defendant a fair trial (People v Watts, supra, at 741; People v. Jordan, supra, at 407), but rather were intended to facilitate the expeditious and orderly progress of the trial (see, People v. Jamison, 47 N.Y.2d 882). Accordingly, reversal on this point is unwarranted.
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Miller, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.