Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment entered upon a plea of guilty convicting him of grand larceny in the first degree (Penal Law § 155.42) and criminal diversion of prescription medications and prescriptions in the second degree (Penal Law § 178.20). By his guilty plea, defendant forfeited appellate review of his contention that the prosecutor made improper use of a proposed indictment in the Grand Jury ( see, People v. Di Raffaele, 55 N.Y.2d 234, 240; People v. Morgan, 209 A.D.2d 727, lv denied 85 N.Y.2d 912; People v. Nelson, 173 A.D.2d 205, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 956). In any event, CPL article 190 does not prohibit the prosecutor's use of a proposed indictment. Such practice was accepted at common law ( see, 4 Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, at 355-356 [1857]) and was prevalent at one time in New York ( see, People ex rel. Hackley v. Kelly, 24 N.Y. 74, 79). The prosecutor properly instructed the Grand Jury not to draw any inference from the fact that a proposed indictment was drafted. "Absent a breach of a statutory command or some indication of likely prejudice, there is no legal basis for interfering with the prosecutor's prerogatives in determining the manner in which a Grand Jury presentment is made" ( People v. Adessa, 89 N.Y.2d 677, 682). Defendant's other contentions concerning the Grand Jury proceeding are not preserved for our review ( see, CPL 470.05), and we decline to exercise our power to review them as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see, CPL 470.15 [a]).
Furthermore, defendant's contentions concerning the manner in which County Court set the amount of restitution are not preserved for our review ( see, CPL 470.05; People v. Callahan, 80 N.Y.2d 273, 281). In any event, it was not necessary for the court, in ordering restitution in addition to imprisonment, to consider defendant's ability to pay ( see, People v. Weinberg, 213 A.D.2d 506, 507, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 970; Penal Law § 60.27; cf., Penal Law § 65.10 [g]). Based upon the proof at the restitution hearing, the court properly ordered defendant to pay restitution in the amount of $1,369,696.80.
Finally, we reject the contention of defendant that he was sentenced in violation of his plea bargain. The sentence imposed is not unduly harsh or severe.