Majority
— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marras, J.),- rendered August 2, 2006, convicting him of arson in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant’s contention that he was deprived of a fair trial as a result of the prosecutor’s improper cross-examination of the defendant is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Thompson, 62 AD3d 817 , 818 [2009]). In any event, any error arising from the prosecutor’s cross-examination of the defendant was harmless, as there was overwhelming evidence of the defendant’s guilt, and there is no
The defendant’s contention regarding the trial court’s charge to the jury concerning his status as an interested witness is also unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Dees, 45 AD3d 602 , 603 [2007]). In any event, any error was harmless (see People v Crimmins, 36 NY2d at 242 ; People v Katz, 214 AD2d 586 [1995]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Florio, J.P., Dickerson, Chambers and Lott, JJ., concur.
Cases cited
- People v. Crimmins 36 NY2d 230 at 242 p. 859
- People v. Damon 78 AD3d 860 at 860-861 p. 859
- People v. Suitte 90 AD2d 80 p. 859