Since defendant's objections to the court's supplemental charge on possession did not alert the court to the arguments raised on appeal, defendant has not preserved these arguments (see, People v. Jackson, 76 N.Y.2d 908; People v. Nuccie, 57 N.Y.2d 818, 819); and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the supplemental charge was fair and did not express any opinion with respect to resolution of the issues, and that the hypothetical example was not excessively similar to the facts of the case (see, People v. Schenkman, 46 N.Y.2d 232, 239). Further, the court instructed the jury that it had no opinion and it is presumed that the jury followed that instruction (People v. Davis, 58 N.Y.2d 1102).
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.
Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Nardelli, Tom and Andrias, JJ.