Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his claim that his conviction of attempted grand larceny in the second degree under the first count of the indictment was based on legally insufficient evidence, because his motion for a trial order of dismissal failed to refer to any specific deficiency in the evidence presented by the People (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Prentice, 199 A.D.2d 343; see also, People v. Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858, 859). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, Penal Law § 110.00, 155.40 Penal [2]). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's sentence was neither unconstitutional (see, People v. Jones, 39 N.Y.2d 694; People v. Clark, 176 A.D.2d 1206) nor excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either without merit or unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Whethers, 191 A.D.2d 526) and, in any event, without merit. Bracken, J.P., O'Brien, Joy and Goldstein, JJ., concur.