Opinion
May 30, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention regarding the inadequacy of the court's adverse inference charge, imposed as a sanction for the loss of Rosario material, is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Roe, 196 A.D.2d 899, 900; People v Thomas, 50 N.Y.2d 467) and, in any event, without merit (see, People v Martinez, 71 N.Y.2d 937).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Sullivan, J.P., Rosenblatt, O'Brien and Thompson, JJ., concur.