Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that he was denied his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him because a detective testified that he arrested the defendant after a conversation with his accomplice, who did not testify at trial. Although the defendant objected to that testimony and moved for a mistrial, he did not specify the ground now raised on appeal and failed to object to the court's remedy. Therefore, the issue is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v. Fleming, 70 NY2d 947; People v. Perez, 9 AD3d 376, 377; People v. Moreno, 303 AD2d 424; People v. Hughes, 251 AD2d 513). In any event, although the challenged testimony was improper, since it implied that the accomplice implicated the defendant in the crime ( see People v. Latta, 295 AD2d 449), the error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt ( see People v. Crimmins, 36 NY2d 230; People v. Latta, supra).