Opinion
September 15, 1997
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
At the time of trial, the People offered into evidence a DNA chart containing the results of DNA testing conducted on samples taken from both the victim and the defendant. This DNA chart had been offered into evidence through the testimony of a forensics expert, who supervised the persons who conducted the tests, but did not engage in any of the actual testing procedures. Having failed to object with any specificity, the defendant's present claim, that the DNA chart was inadmissible hearsay, was not challenged on that basis at trial and hence is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.0; see also, People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245; People v. N'Guyen, 184 A.D.2d 274).
In any event, the defendant's claim is without merit given that this DNA chart could have been admitted under the business records exception to the hearsay rule ( see, CPLR 4518 [a]; People v. Cratsley, 86 N.Y.2d 81).
The defendant's sentence is not excessive ( see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.