All of the challenges to defendant's trial conviction that are raised in his main brief are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that uncharged crime evidence was properly admitted because it was relevant to defendant's intent with respect to the resisting arrest and assault charges (see People v. Till, 87 N.Y.2d 835) and because its prejudicial effect was minimal; we would find that the challenged portions of the prosecutor's summation were responsive to the defense summation; and we would find that the jury instruction given by the court during defendant's summation was appropriate since the defense argument had the potential for misleading the jury on the law and since the instruction did not undermine any proper summation arguments.
Since defendant does not seek vacatur of either of his guilty pleas unless this Court reverses his trial conviction, and since we find no basis upon which to reverse that conviction, we do not reach defendant's arguments relating to his guilty pleas, including his arguments relating to suppression of identification testimony.
We have considered and rejected the claims contained in defendant's pro se supplemental brief.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.