Ordered that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of 12 years imprisonment to a determinate term of nine years imprisonment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to impose any sanction against the People for the loss of Rosario material ( People v Rosario, 9 NY2d 286, cert denied 368 US 866). The defendant failed to carry his burden of showing a reasonable possibility that the police officer's destruction of a draft complaint report materially contributed to the defendant's conviction or caused him any prejudice ( see CPL 240.75; People v Sorbello, 285 AD2d 88, 96; People v Norris, 34 AD3d 501, 502-503).
The defendant's contention that the trial court's response to a jury note was not "meaningful" ( People v Malloy, 55 NY2d 296, 301, cert denied 459 US 847; CPL 310.30) is not preserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10) and, in any event, is without merit, as the supplemental charge conveyed a correct statement of the law ( see People v Mateo, 5 AD3d 507), and was consistent with the main charge to which the defendant did not object.
The sentence imposed was excessive to the extent indicated herein ( see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).