
    The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Matthew Lemon, Appellant.
    Decided May 10, 1984
    
      APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL
    
      Rose H. Sconiers, Joseph B. Mistrett and Michael C. Walsh for appellant.
    
      Richard J. Arcara, District Attorney (John J. DeFranks of counsel), for respondent.
   OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that his sentence is illegal may not be reviewed on this appeal because the point has not been properly preserved. The defendant does not urge that the court exceeded the statutory limits of discretion when it imposed the consecutive minimum terms of imprisonment (see, e.g., People v Fuller, 57 NY2d 152, 156). The only contention is that the court misunderstood the effect the minimum sentences would have upon the defendant’s ability to obtain release on parole, and presumably would have exercised its discretion in a more lenient manner had the error been dispelled. The defendant, however, did not bring this point to the court’s attention at the time of the sentence, or by way of a motion for resentence, and thus no error of law has been preserved for our review (People v McGowen, 42 NY2d 905).

We have considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wacht-ler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.  