Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court erred in giving a "no inference charge" ( see CPL 300.10) during voir dire is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Autry, 75 NY2d 836, 838-839; People v Mitchell, 298 AD2d 602). In any event, any error was harmless ( see People v Koberstein, 66 NY2d 989, 991; People v Vereen, 45 NY2d 856, 857).
The defendant contends that the Supreme Court erred in permitting the prosecutor to elicit testimony from a detective that he arrested the defendant immediately after the defendant participated in a lineup, which testimony followed that of a complainant who testified that he had identified the defendant in the lineup. However, this contention also is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Melendez, 51 AD3d 1040, 1041; People v Sealy, 35 AD3d 510, 510-511; People v Lucas, 193 AD2d 700). In any event, any error was harmless ( see People v Sealy, 35 AD3d at 511).
The defendant's contention that the persistent violent felony offender sentencing scheme under Penal Law § 70.08 violates the principles announced in Apprendi v New Jersey ( 530 US 466) is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Rodriguez, 51 AD3d 950, 951) and, in any event, is without merit ( see People v Rawlins, 10 NY3d 136, 158; People v Rivera, 5 NY3d 61, 67, cert denied 546 US 984).
The sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.