Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was not unduly prejudiced or deprived of a fair trial due to the fact that his legs were shackled during the trial. The trial court's refusal to have the restraints removed was justified by the defendant's prior conduct and did not constitute an improvident exercise of the court's discretion ( see, People v Rouse, 79 NY2d 934; People v Tedesco, 143 AD2d 155, 159).
The defendant's contention regarding the court's Sandoval ruling is unpreserved for appellate review ( see, People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292, n 3). In any event, any error with respect to the court's ruling was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt ( see, People v Ruiz, 205 AD2d 647).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.