Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's claim that the trial court improvidently exercised its discretion by failing to impose sanctions for the People's failure to preserve a license plate that was attached to the stolen van at the time of his arrest, is raised for the first time on appeal, and therefore, is not preserved for appellate review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Buckley, 75 N.Y.2d 843, 846; People v. Edwards, 179 A.D.2d 511, 513-514).
In any event, the defendant's claim is without merit. The evidence adduced at trial established that after the defendant's arrest, the van and the license plate attached thereto, were transported to the 110th Police Precinct, where the license plate was vouchered and photographed. However, sometime thereafter, an unknown thief stole the van along with the license plate. Although the actual license plate was not available at trial, the defendant stipulated to the admission into evidence of the photograph and had the opportunity to cross-examine the People's witnesses as to it. Since, under these circumstances, there is no evidence of bad faith by the People and no showing of prejudice to the defendant, the trial court was "not required to impose sanctions ( see, People v. Haupt, 71 N.Y.2d 929; People v. Bay, 67 N.Y.2d 787; People v. Kelly, 62 N.Y.2d 516; People v. Perez, 255 A.D.2d 403; People v. Lulenski, 193 A.D.2d 817, 818; People v. Daly, 186 A.D.2d 217; People v. McIntosh, 184 A.D.2d 662).
S. Miller, J. P., Santucci, Sullivan and Florio, JJ., concur.