People v. Carvalho

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of arson in the second degree (Penal Law § 150.15). We reject his contention that Supreme Court erred in admitting the testimony of his stepdaughter that his wife exclaimed, “[h]e set the house on fire”, as she ran from the house immediately after the fire 946 started. That testimony was properly admitted under the present sense impression exception to the hearsay rule (see, People v Brown, 80 NY2d 729). By objecting to the admission of his co-worker’s testimony on a ground different from the ground raised on appeal, defendant failed to preserve his present contention for our review (see, People v Osuna, 65 NY2d 822, 824; People v Avellanet, 242 AD2d 865). We decline to exercise our power to review defendant’s contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Mark, J. — Arson, 2nd Degree.) Present — Lawton, J. P., Hayes, Callahan, Balio and Boehm, JJ.