Defendant's challenge to the constitutionality of his mandatory minimum sentence requires preservation (People v. Ingram, 67 N.Y.2d 897), and we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would not find that this sentence was unconstitutional as applied to defendant (see, People v. Thompson, 83 N.Y.2d 477). Nor is there any other basis for reduction of the sentence. Contrary to defendant's argument, where a defendant has already received the minimum sentence authorized by law this Court has no authority to reduce such sentence as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (CPL 470.20).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.