Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25) and unauthorized use of a motor vehicle in the first degree (Penal Law § 165.08), defendant contends that the prosecutor improperly cross-examined a defense witness by using a confidential presentence investigation report.
That contention is not preserved for our review by defendant's general objection to two questions (see, People v. Brailsford, 106 A.D.2d 648, 649; see also, People v. Pobliner, 32 N.Y.2d 356, 366, rearg denied 33 N.Y.2d 657, cert denied 416 U.S. 905), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [a]).
We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions raised in the pro se supplemental brief. Defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is not preserved for our review (see, People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10, 19). Were we to reach the merits, we would conclude that the evidence is legally sufficient (see, People v. Williams, 84 N.Y.2d 925, 926). We further conclude that defendant received effective assistance of counsel (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147).