Majority
Appeal by the de
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that he was deprived of a fair trial due to improper remarks made by the trial court to prospective jurors during voir dire (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Cunningham, 119 AD3d 601 [2014]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the court’s alleged misconduct did not constitute a mode of proceedings error exempting him from the rules of preservation (see People v Brown, 7 NY3d 880 , 881 [2006]; People v Cunningham, 119 AD3d at 601-602 ; People v Casanova, 62 AD3d 88 , 91-92 [2009]; People v McDuffie, 270 AD2d 362 [2000]). In any event, the court’s remarks to the prospective jurors, while inappropriate, did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial (see People v Mason, 132 AD3d 777 , 779 [2015]; People v Daniel, 37 AD3d 731 , 732 [2007]; People v Alston, 225 AD2d 453 , 454 [1996]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
Rivera, J.P., Leventhal, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Cunningham 119 AD3d 601 p. 879
- People v. Brown 7 NY3d 880 at 881 p. 879
- People v. Casanova 62 AD3d 88 at 91-92 p. 879
- People v. Mason 132 AD3d 777 at 779 p. 879
- People v. Alston 225 AD2d 453 at 454 p. 879
- People v. Suitte 90 AD2d 80 p. 879