Defendant failed to preserve his claim that the police officers' testimony about their observations of defendant and his co-defendant immediately prior to the time that they stole the victim's purse was inadmissible evidence of an uncharged crime, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. If we were to review, we would find that the officers' testimony was not evidence of an uncharged crime, but was properly admitted to establish both defendant's preparation to commit the crimes charged and the officers' ability to see and identify defendant as the thief (People v. Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350, 359-360).
Nor do we find the prosecutor's summation improper; rather, it was a vigorous but fair response to defense counsel's summation which accused the People's witnesses of lying and framing defendant (People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 399; People v York, 133 A.D.2d 130, 133, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 939).
Finally, because counsel failed to claim that he was prejudiced by the destruction of the handwritten police voucher or ask the court for any type of sanction or relief, he has failed to preserve his Rosario claim (People v. Rogelio, 79 N.Y.2d 843).
Concur — Carro, J.P., Rosenberger, Ross and Asch, JJ.