Defendant's claim that the court's supplemental instruction on the elements of reckless endangerment, in which it made reference to locations outside Bronx County, constructively amended the indictment is a claim requiring preservation (People v. Reed, 242 A.D.2d 978, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 836; People v. Perry, 226 A.D.2d 282, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 940, see also, People v. Ford, 62 N.Y.2d 275), and we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the challenged portion of the instruction merely clarified a geographical question in this case where certain events occurred at the border between Bronx and Westchester counties, and that there was no prejudice to defendant because venue in Bronx County was not in dispute and was amply established in any event.
Sentencing defendant as a persistent felony offender was a proper exercise of discretion. Defendant's claim that the procedural requirements of CPL 400.20 were not followed is unpreserved for appellate review (People v. Proctor, 79 N.Y.2d 992, 994; People v. Banks, 265 A.D.2d 163, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 819), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find sufficient compliance with those requirements (see, People v. Banks, supra).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.