MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him after a jury trial of criminal contempt in the first degree (Penal Law § 215.51 [c]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was denied a fair trial due to prejudicial media coverage, having failed to ask the prospective jurors whether they were aware of the case as a result of media coverage or to move for a change of venue ( see generally People v. Parker, 60 N.Y.2d 714, 715). In any event, that contention lacks merit. County Court asked the prospective jurors whether they had prior knowledge of the case from the media or any other source and none gave an affirmative response.
We reject the further contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel ( see generally People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147). Defendant's contention is based on the failure of defense counsel to move pursuant to CPL 330.30 to set aside the verdict, thereby allegedly failing to preserve for our review defendant's contention that the conviction is not supported by legally sufficient evidence. As a preliminary matter, we note that a motion pursuant to CPL 330.30 does not preserve for our review a contention that is not otherwise preserved ( see People v. Schultz, 266 A.D.2d 919, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 906). In any event, the evidence, which included the testimony of the victim and two eyewitnesses as well as defendant's testimony admitting the underlying facts, is legally sufficient to support the conviction ( see generally People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). The sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe.