Since defendant objected on different grounds from those he raises on appeal, he has not preserved his present challenge to the introduction into evidence of a letter found on his person that contained instructions for completing a particular drug transaction, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we also reject it on the merits. The letter was not hearsay, since it was not received for the truth of its contents, but to demonstrate defendant's intent to sell the drugs he possessed. The letter was intended to convey instructions, not assertions of fact ( see People v Mixon, 292 AD2d 177, lv denied 98 NY2d 678).
The surcharges and fees were properly imposed ( see People v Guerrero, 12 NY3d 45).
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.