DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that he was prejudiced by the late disclosure of certain Rosario material and that the court erred in failing to declare a mistrial based upon the delay (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Kane, 85 N.Y.2d 1024, 1027; People v. Rogelio, 79 N.Y.2d 843; People v. Vanega, 243 A.D.2d 261, 262). In any event, reversal is not warranted since the defendant had a meaningful opportunity to use the material (see, People v. Banch, 80 N.Y.2d 610; People v. Perez, 65 N.Y.2d 154, 159; People v. Farner, 234 A.D.2d 561; People v. Williams, 229 A.D.2d 603, 604).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 85-86).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05), or without merit.