Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant claims that his constitutional right of confrontation was violated when the trial court permitted the investigating detective to testify that the defendant had been arrested after being implicated by another suspect who did not testify at trial. The contention, was not preserved for appellate review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05; see, People v Cummings, 109 A.D.2d 748) and review in the interest of justice is unwarranted in the circumstances at bar (cf., People v Ranum, 122 A.D.2d 959). In any event, any error would be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt (People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 237) in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt (see, People v Grant, 133 A.D.2d 466; People v Dubois, 137 A.D.2d 706). Thompson, J.P., Rubin, Spatt and Balletta, JJ., concur.