Defendants' contentions regarding the court's jury instructions are unpreserved, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find no basis for reversal. According to the transcript, at one point in the charge, the court made an inadvertent omission of the word "cross-examination" resulting in a misstatement of law that went unnoticed by all counsel; however, the court's instructions as a whole as well as the summation arguments ensured that the jurors were well aware that testimony elicited on cross-examination constituted evidence to be evaluated (see, People v Graham, 276 A.D.2d 445; People v Rivera, 272 A.D.2d 140, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 857). The other instructions challenged by defendants on appeal were appropriate.
Upon our review of the entire record, we conclude that both defendants received meaningful assistance (see, People v Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713-714). Although defendants claim that their trial attorneys should have made various objections and exceptions, the absence of such protests did not deprive either defendant of a fair trial (see, People v Hobot, 84 N.Y.2d 1021, 1024).
Defendants' remaining contentions are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them.
Comment
User Comments