PEOPLE v. RODRIGUEZ

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he is entitled to a new trial because the court incorrectly dismissed two prospective jurors, one of whom advised the court during voir dire that he was scheduled to undergo long-awaited surgery in two days' time. We disagree and find that the court's dismissals of the prospective jurors were proper exercises of discretion ( see generally, People v. Page, 72 N.Y.2d 69, 73; cf., People v. Oyewole, 220 A.D.2d 624).

The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05) and we decline to review them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

O'Brien, J. P., Ritter, Thompson and Goldstein, JJ., concur.