DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.
We do not agree with the People that the defendant waived his right to appellate review, either with regard to his claim that his sentences were excessive, or with regard to his claim as to the Supreme Court's failure to consider, or to grant, youthful offender treatment ( see People v. Boustani, 300 A.D.2d 313; cf. People v. Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d 831).
The ambiguous remarks made by defense counsel shortly after the Supreme Court pronounced sentence did not constitute a request for youthful offender treatment ( see CPL 720.10), much less a timely one. The defendant's failure to make such a request in the Supreme Court precludes him from arguing on appeal that it was error as a matter of law for that court to have failed to consider whether youthful offender treatment would have been appropriate under all the circumstances ( see People v. McGowen, 42 N.Y.2d 905; People v. Howard, 1 A.D.3d 718; People v. Walrath, 285 A.D.2d 674; People v. Pagano, 253 A.D.2d 500; People v. Cunningham, 238 A.D.2d 350; People v. Wimbush, 234 A.D.2d 574). In any event, youthful offender treatment was not warranted under all the circumstances presented in this case ( cf. People v. Cruickshank, 105 A.D.2d 325, affd 67 N.Y.2d 625).
The sentences imposed were not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
PRUDENTI, P.J., GOLDSTEIN, LUCIANO and COZIER, JJ., concur.