Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the trial court improperly admitted hearsay testimony which implied that a nontestifying witness implicated him in a murder, depriving him of his constitutional right to confront the witnesses against him. Although the defendant objected to the testimony at issue, he did not specify the ground now raised on appeal. Therefore, the issue of whether he was deprived of his right of confrontation is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05; People v Fleming,
In any event, the testimony at issue was properly admitted into evidence not for its truth, but to explain why the defendant confessed to the police when he did (see People v Reynoso,
