Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Since the defendant failed to request that the court rule on the propriety of the release of certain property and failed to seek any instruction to mitigate any alleged harm caused by its release, his current challenge is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; Penal Law § 450.10 11[1]; People v Taylor, 203 A.D.2d 77; People v. Graham, 186 A.D.2d 47). In any event, where, as here, such noncompliance did not sufficiently prejudice the defendant or establish that the statutory violation was intentional or in bad faith, reversal is not warranted (see, People v. Graham, supra; People v. Dent, 183 A.D.2d 723; People v. Byron, 171 A.D.2d 802; People v. Roper, 139 A.D.2d 679, 680; People v. Crawford, 135 A.D.2d 554; People v. Greico, 125 A.D.2d 490).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
Mangano, P.J., Rosenblatt, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.