In this buy and bust operation, the undercover officer approached defendant, who said "I've got TNT. How many do you need?". The officer responded "if the stuff is kicking, give me two". Defendant then gave the undercover officer two glassines marked with the logo "TNT", in exchange for $20 in buy money. After the undercover officer's "ghost" watched defendant then interact with three or four people behind him, he then arrested defendant. The undercover officer confirmed the identification moments later. Defendant has failed to preserve his challenge to the "reasonable doubt" phrasing in the Allen charge (People v Medina, 178 A.D.2d 177, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 950; People v Bowman, 194 A.D.2d 379, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 714). Since the court's instructions as a whole conveyed the appropriate principles of law (People v. Medina, supra), we decline to review in the interest of justice. Defendant also failed to preserve his challenge to the court's summary of the evidence (People v. Williams, 190 A.D.2d 590, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1021 ), and we decline to review in the interest of justice. If we were to review, we would note that the marshalling of the evidence was neither unbalanced nor unfair (CPL 300.10; People v. Bacchus, 183 A.D.2d 720, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 828).
Defendant also has failed to present an adequate record in support of his claim that the court failed to conduct a pre-voir dire oath as to certain prospective jurors in violation of CPL 270.15 (1). The record does not indicate whether or not an oath was administered to certain of these jurors; it does indicate that the oath was administered to all other prospective jurors. We note, however, that defense counsel failed to draw the court's attention to the purported error, failed to preserve a record of the purported error, and, in fact, even explicitly expressed satisfaction with these potential jurors. The claim is therefore unpreserved (People v. Morales, 168 A.D.2d 85, 87).
Similarly, defendant has failed to present an adequate record in support of his claim that he was absent during certain bench conferences during the voir dire. The record is silent with respect to whether the defendant was present during these specified conferences. In any event, since this trial preceded the ruling in People v. Antommarchi ( 80 N.Y.2d 247), which is not retroactively applied (People v. Mitchell, 80 N.Y.2d 519), reversal would not be warranted.
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be unpreserved or without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Carro, Wallach, Rubin and Williams, JJ.