DECISION ORDER
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his argument that he did not timely receive certain alleged Rosario material ( see, People v. Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286) and that, therefore, he is entitled to a new trial ( see, People v. Graves, 85 N.Y.2d 1024; People v. Rogelio, 79 N.Y.2d 843; People v. Batista, 233 A.D.2d 195). In any event, he received the alleged Rosario material in sufficient time to make meaningful use of it, and was not substantially prejudiced by the delay ( see, People v. Banch, 80 N.Y.2d 610; People v. Ranghelle, 69 N.Y.2d 56; People v. Perez, 65 N.Y.2d 154).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.
S. MILLER, J.P., O'BRIEN, RITTER, and FLORIO, JJ., concur.