PEOPLE v. HARPER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's challenge to certain portions of the prosecutor's summation are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Cuffy, 265 A.D.2d 421 [2d Dept., Oct. 12, 1999]; People v. Nuccie, 57 N.Y.2d 818, 819 ) or without merit.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion by admitting into evidence photographs depicting the victim's injuries (see, People v. Mastropietro, 232 A.D.2d 725 ).

Contrary to the defendant's contention, "[m]ere eligibility for youthful offender status does not mandate youthful offender treatment, and the grant of such a benefit lies wholly within the discretion of the court" (People v. Vera, 206 A.D.2d 494 ; see, People v. Cuffy, supra,; People v. Barr, 168 A.D.2d 625 ; People v. Williams, 124 A.D.2d 615 ). Here, the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in denying the defendant youthful offender status (see, People v. Cuffy, supra; People v. Vera, supra;People v. Rivas, 246 A.D.2d 488 ).

RITTER, J.P., S. MILLER, McGINITY, and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.