Opinion
September 27, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Goldstein, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention regarding the inadequacy of the court's adverse inference charge, imposed as an appropriate sanction for the destruction of the scratch paper upon which the arresting officer had originally written the descriptions of the perpetrators (see, People v Wallace, 76 N.Y.2d 953; People v Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, cert denied 368 U.S. 866), is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Thomas, 50 N.Y.2d 467) and, in any event, is without merit (see, People v Lawley, 196 A.D.2d 890 [decided herewith]; People v Martinez, 71 N.Y.2d 937; People v Morillo, 181 A.D.2d 532).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Thompson, J.P., Miller, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.