Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the admission of People's exhibit Nos. 6 and 7 deprived him of a fair trial ( see CPL 470.05). In any event, insofar as both exhibits summarized information from various DNA reports, they were properly admitted under the voluminous writing exception to the best evidence rule ( see Ed Guth Realty v Gingold, 34 NY2d 440; Sager Spuck Statewide Supply Co. v Meyer, 298 AD2d 794; People v Potter, 255 AD2d 763; People v Weinberg, 183 AD2d 932). Furthermore, we note that before trial, the defendant was provided with copies of all the DNA reports ( see Ed Guth Realty v Gingold, 34 NY2d 440; Sager Spuck Statewide Supply Co. v Meyer, 298 AD2d 794; People v Potter, 255 AD2d 763; People v Weinberg, 183 AD2d 932).