Opinion
July 6, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Greenberg, J.).
Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.
The record does not substantiate the defendant's claim that the sentencing court spoke to the victim's brother and counsel outside of his presence. Moreover, the defendant's further claim that the court erred in permitting the victim's brother to make an oral victim impact statement is unpreserved for appellate review because the defendant failed to raise any objection to this procedure (see, People v. Wright, 187 A.D.2d 1016). In any event, although the defendant correctly notes that at the time of sentencing, the sentiments of the victim's family could be made known to the court only through a written victim impact statement (see, CPL 390.30), or at a presentence conference, provided that the prosecutor and defense counsel were given reasonable notice and an opportunity to participate (see, CPL 400.10), in the absence of any indication that the sentencing court was unduly influenced by its conversation with the victim's brother, we decline to vacate the sentence in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, People v. Wright, supra). Finally, we note that the defendant's negotiated sentence was not unduly harsh or excessive (see, People v. Delgado, 80 N.Y.2d 780). Mangano, P.J., Balletta, Eiber, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.