The court properly exercised its discretion in admitting expert testimony regarding gang customs and rituals. This testimony was explanatory of defendant's actions and unusual statements at the time of the crime and was relevant to his motive (see People v. Edwards, 295 A.D.2d 270; People v. Tai, 224 A.D.2d 328, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 942). The court's thorough instructions minimized any prejudicial effect. Defendant's related argument concerning the People's summation is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would reject it.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.