Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him because the identified citizen informant who furnished the information leading to his arrest was apparently in police custody and thus unreliable as a matter of law is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05).
The defendant's contention that a portion of the Supreme Court's charge constituted reversible error is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Miller, 235 AD2d 568, 570). Further, under the circumstances of this case, there was no mode-of-proceedings error with respect to the court's charge that would exempt the defendant's argument from preservation requirements ( see People v Brown, 7 NY3d 880, 881; People v Agramonte, 87 NY2d 765, 769-770; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 21; People v Patterson, 39 NY2d 288, 295; People v Bonilla, 51 AD3d 585, 585-586).