By objecting on different grounds than those raised on appeal, defendant failed to preserve his present claim regarding the court's participation in the questioning of a prosecution witness (People v. Blakeney, 219 A.D.2d 10, 14, affd 88 N.Y.2d 1011), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court's two-question inquiry, followed by suitable curative instructions, was an appropriate exercise of discretion, which, clarified the evidence by explaining the significance of previously elicited testimony (People v. Moulton, 43 N.Y.2d 944, 945). This limited questioning did not usurp the role of the attorneys, and did not convey to the jury that the court had any personal opinion regarding defendant's guilt (see, People v. Gonzalez, 228 A.D.2d 340, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 1021).
Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Tom, Mazzarelli and Saxe, JJ.