Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is unpreserved for appellate review ( see CPL 470.05; People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10, 19). Although the defendant did raise a similar argument in his motion pursuant to CPL article 330 to set aside the verdict, raising such an argument for the first time in such a motion is not sufficient to preserve a claim for appellate review ( see People v Padro, 75 NY2d 820, 821; People v Donnigan, 31 AD3d 576; People v LaGuerre, 29 AD3d 820, 821). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution and affording it the benefit of every favorable inference to be drawn therefrom ( see Jackson v Virginia, 443 US 307, 319; People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620, 621), it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt ( see People v Plaisted, 2 AD3d 906, 907; People v Stephens, 2 AD3d 888, 889; People v Smith, 302 AD2d 677, 679; People v Williams, 259 AD2d 509). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power ( see CPL 470.15), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633).
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that the sentence imposed by the County Court improperly penalized him for exercising his right to a jury trial, as he did not raise this issue on the record at the time of sentencing ( see People v Robinson, 287 AD2d 582). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit ( see People v Martinez, 289 AD2d 259, 259-260; People v Robinson, 287 AD2d at 582-583). Further, the sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).