Defendant's current claim of error in connection with the procedure utilized for the exercise of peremptory challenges is unpreserved ( People v. Mancuso, 22 N.Y.2d 679, cert denied sub nom. Morganti v. New York, 393 U.S. 946) and we decline to review it in the interest of justice ( see, People v. Levy, 194 A.D.2d 319, appeal dismissed 82 N.Y.2d 890).
Defendant's argument that she should have been permitted to challenge a certain venireperson for cause is unpreserved, since she made no such challenge, even though the court expressed an opinion on the venireperson's suitability. Even if defendant had made such challenge, it would have been properly denied because the totality of the venireperson's responses left no doubt regarding his ability to be fair and impartial ( see, People v Middleton, 220 A.D.2d 202, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 848).
The trial court appropriately exercised its discretion in admitting into evidence a blank Police Department property form to encourage clarity rather than obscurity in the development of proof ( People v. Moulton, 43 N.Y.2d 944). Contrary to defendant's argument, the People were entitled to offer evidence and advance arguments addressing the permissible negative inference charged by the court in connection with the lost completed form ( see, People v. Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424, 431).
We find the sentence imposed excessive to the extent indicated.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.