Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the trial court impermissibly intervened in the cross-examination of the defendant was not preserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v Charleston, 56 N.Y.2d 886; People v. Gonzalez, 183 A.D.2d 783). In any event, the trial court's questioning of the defendant was proper ( see, People v. Yut Wai Tom, 53 N.Y.2d 44; People v. De Jesus, 42 N.Y.2d 519).
The defendant has failed to preserve his claim that the trial court improperly marshaled the evidence in the prosecution's favor ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Bacchus, 183 A.D.2d 720; People v. McDonald, 144 A.D.2d 701, 702). In any event, we find no improvident exercise of that discretion here. The court is not required to explain all of the contentions of both parties, or outline all inconsistencies in the evidence ( see, People v Saunders, 64 N.Y.2d 665). Rather, it is required only to provide, in its discretion, a sufficient statement of facts to explain, as far as is practicable, the application of the law to the facts ( see, CPL 300.10; People v. Bonney, 222 A.D.2d 687; People v Geattys, 200 A.D.2d 585).
Bracken, J.P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Luciano, JJ., concur.