Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claim that the trial court improperly interfered with his direct examination is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, People v. Charleston, 66 N.Y.2d 886; People v Whitehead, 155 A.D.2d 567). In any event, the defendant was not deprived of a fair trial by the court's conduct. The limited questioning in which the court engaged was designed to clarify the issues and to facilitate the orderly and expeditious progress of the proceedings ( see, People v. Yut Wai Tom, 53 N.Y.2d 44; People v. Whitehead, supra). A review of the record reveals that the court's intervention was appropriate.
The defendant's sentence was not excessive ( see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those regarding the propriety of the court's charge, are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, lack merit.
O'Brien, J.P., Sullivan, Goldstein and Luciano, JJ., concur.