The testimony of the People's physician witness was properly admitted as expert evidence, since the People elicited, and the court accepted, the doctor's medical experience and professional credentials. There is no requirement that a trial court formally "`certify'" a witness as an expert ( People v. Gordon, 202 A.D.2d 166, 167, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 911). Defendant's contention that the court impermissibly delegated to the jurors the task of determining whether the witness was an expert was not preserved for appellate review. Were we to review it in the interest of justice, we would find that defendant has failed to demonstrate that he was prejudiced in any way by the challenged portion of the court's jury charge.
We have considered defendant's remaining contention and find it to be both unpreserved and without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Tom, JJ.