Judgment unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum:
Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in refusing to question the jury about a newspaper article concerning a burglary unrelated to defendant or this case ( see, People v. Rein, 278 A.D.2d 255 [decided Dec. 4, 2000]). The court also properly denied that part of defendant's motion seeking suppression of tangible evidence seized by the police ( see, People v. Ruben, 267 A.D.2d 961, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 924). The court erred in denying that part of defendant's motion seeking suppression of statements made in response to police questioning, without the benefit of Miranda warnings. We conclude, however, that the error is harmless ( see, People v Ruben, supra, at 961-962). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contentions that the prosecutor made improper remarks during summation ( see, People v. Romanelli, 239 A.D.2d 940, 941, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 910); that the testimony of the People's expert invaded the province of the jury ( People v. Law, 273 A.D.2d 897, 898); and that the court erred in charging the jury on accessorial liability ( see, People v. Parons, 275 A.D.2d 933, 934-935, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 937 [decided Nov. 22, 2000]) and the recent and exclusive possession of stolen property ( see, People v. Harris, 204 A.D.2d 987, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 826). 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]).