Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that the prosecutor violated the court's Sandoval ruling (see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371) by questioning him regarding a false response he gave on an employment application, since the defendant's objection to the inquiry did not raise this precise issue (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Graves, 85 N.Y.2d 1024; People v. Collins, 254 A.D.2d 154). In any event, the subject matter of the questioning did not violate the court's Sandoval ruling, nor did it warrant the giving of separate or additional prior notice pursuant to CPL 240.43.
The defendant's contention that several alleged instances of prosecutorial misconduct occurred during cross-examination is not preserved for appellate review, inasmuch as he failed to register timely, specific objections to the prosecutor's statements or to the curative instructions provided by the court (see, People v. Heide, 84 N.Y.2d 943; People v. Tevaha, 84 N.Y.2d 879; People v. Fleming, 70 N.Y.2d 947).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
THOMPSON, J.P., SULLIVAN, ALTMAN and FEUERSTEIN, JJ., concur.