We find no basis to disturb the factual determination of the court that defendant was informed of the additional charge being considered by the Grand Jury on February 16, 1996, well before his Grand Jury testimony of February 20, 1996. In any event, the prosecutor was under no duty to advise defendant of these charges as "[t]he Grand Jury notice provisions of CPL 190.50 (5) do not impose upon the prosecution an obligation to provide notice of separate charges presented to a Grand Jury which are not included in a pending felony complaint" (People v. Clark, 240 A.D.2d 325, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 890). We similarly agree with the court that defendant received meaningful representation at the Grand Jury stage of the proceedings (see, People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713-714; People v. Hobot, 84 N.Y.2d 1021, 1024).
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion and find no merit to defendant's various constitutional and statutory challenges to his sentencing as a second violent felony offender.
Defendant's remaining claims are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them.
Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Sullivan, Lerner and Rubin, JJ.