It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25). The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the People ( see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), is legally sufficient to support the conviction ( see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495). Contrary to defendant's contentions, Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the People's expert to testify that defendant's DNA profile was maintained in a DNA database ( see People v Meekins, 34 AD3d 843, 846, affd 10 NY3d 136), and defendant received meaningful representation ( see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his further contentions that the court improperly expressed an opinion on the strength of the People's case during its charge ( see generally People v Davenport, 38 AD3d 1064, 1066), and that he was denied a fair trial by prosecutorial misconduct on summation ( see People v Searles, 28 AD3d 1205, lv denied 7 NY3d 817). We decline to exercise our power to review those contentions as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [a]).