Defendant's challenge to the court's expanded no-adverse-inference charge is unpreserved for review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05; People v. Autry, 75 N.Y.2d 836). We find no reason to review in the interest of justice (see, People v. Autry, supra). In any event, the challenged charge did not impermissibly comment on any failure of a defendant to offer sworn testimony (compare, People v. McLucas, 15 N.Y.2d 167, 171) and was consistent with CPL 300.10 (2) and we decline to reverse for minor expansion beyond the statutory language (People v. Diggs, 151 A.D.2d 359, 362). We have examined defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be meritless.
Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Sullivan, Milonas, Rosenberger and Kassal, JJ.