Defendant's challenge to the denial of his motion to suppress without a hearing is academic since the officer who recovered the property sought to be suppressed was precluded from testifying about such property pursuant to a Rosario sanction lodged against the People. Moreover, after the court's initial ruling, defendant failed to renew his motion on the grounds now asserted on appeal and, therefore, failed to preserve the issue for this Court's review ( see, People v. Clarke, 81 N.Y.2d 777).
Viewed as a whole, the court's charge was balanced and sufficiently conveyed the applicable principles of law to the jury ( People v. Russell, 266 N.Y. 147, 153).
Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Ross, Asch, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.