It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him following a nonjury trial of manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.20), defendant contends that Supreme Court erred in determining that a police officer was qualified to testify as an expert witness concerning the behavior of an individual with a blood alcohol content of .03%. Defendant failed to object to the testimony of the officer on that ground and thus failed to preserve that contention for our review ( see CPL 470.05; see generally People v Delatorres, 34 AD3d 1343, 1344, lv denied 8 NY3d 921; People v Smith, 24 AD3d 1253, lv denied 6 NY3d 818). We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [a]). We reject defendant's further contention that the court erred in admitting the officer's testimony in evidence because it lacked a proper foundation ( see generally People v Jones, 73 NY2d 427, 430), and was irrelevant ( see generally People v Scarola, 71 NY2d 769, 777). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.