—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of grand larceny in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 155.30 [6]), defendant contends that County Court erred in submitting grand larceny in the fourth degree (larceny by extortion) (Penal Law § 155.30 [6]) as a lesser included offense of robbery in the third degree (Penal Law § 160.05). Although defendant is correct that larceny by extortion is not a lesser included offense of robbery (see, People v Koh, 225 AD2d 476, lv denied 88 NY2d 997), defendant withdrew his initial objection to the charge. Thus, “by acquiescing in * * * [the] lesser charge [, defendant] waived his right to complain of the trial court’s error” (People v Ford, 62 NY2d 275, 283). Defendant’s contention that the court’s preliminary instructions were defective (see, CPL 270.40) is not preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; see also, People v Giddens, 202 AD2d 976, lv denied 83 NY2d 871), and we decline to exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contention regarding the presentence investigation report (see, People v Moon, 225 AD2d 826, 827-828, lv denied 88 NY2d 939). (Appeal from Judgment of Niagara County Court, Hannigan, J. — Grand Larceny, 4th Degree.) Present — Denman, P. J., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Balio, JJ.
The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael E. Adams, Appellant
266 A.D.2d 831699 N.Y.S.2d 245
Authorities cited
No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.