DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant claims that the arresting police officer improperly commented on prior uncharged crimes during his testimony. He contends that the comments were unduly prejudicial, warranting reversal and a new trial. That claim is not preserved for appellate review because the defendant failed to specify the basis of his objection (see, People v. West, 56 N.Y.2d 662; People v. Tevaha, 84 N.Y.2d 879).
In any event, the prejudicial information was elicited during cross-examination when the arresting officer answered a question posed to him by the defense counsel. Under the circumstances, the defendant may not seek a new trial because "[a] [d]efendant should not be permitted to be the knowing architect of reversible error" (People v. Casellas, 227 A.D.2d 343, 346; see, People v. McFadden, 261 A.D.2d 419; People v. Moux, 260 A.D.2d 304; People v. Rivera, 188 A.D.2d 322).