Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant argues that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion when it denied his motion pursuant to CPL 200.40 to sever his trial from that of his codefendant. The defendant argued that he and his codefendant would present irreconcilable defenses and that there was a significant probability that he would be prejudiced during cross-examination by his codefendant, who would not be circumscribed by the court's Sandoval ruling (see, People v. Mahboubian, 74 N.Y.2d 174; People v. McGee, 68 N.Y.2d 328). However, "`where proof against the defendants is supplied by the same evidence, only the most cogent reasons warrant a severance'" (People v. Mahboubian, supra, at 183; People v. Thomas, 197 A.D.2d 719). Contrary to the defendant's arguments on appeal, the record does not reveal an irreconcilable conflict between his defense and that of his codefendant such that the conflict alone would have led the jury to infer the defendant's guilt (see, People v. Mahboubian, supra).
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his argument concerning his cross-examination by his codefendant by making timely, specifically tailored objections during trial seeking limitations on the scope of cross-examination, and we decline to reach this issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, People v. Philip, 205 A.D.2d 714; People v. Brodie, 170 A.D.2d 519; People v. Williams, 142 A.D.2d 310).
Ritter, J. P., Altman, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.