Defendant contends that evidence obtained in executing a search warrant of his apartment should be suppressed because the police exercised unnecessary force. Initially, we note that defendant has failed to preserve this issue for appellate review (see, People v Ruggles, 159 A.D.2d 969, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 864, 77 N.Y.2d 1000). In any event, the record indicates that the police identified themselves to defendant and stated that they had a search warrant for his apartment, and that they used force to open the apartment door only after defendant indicated that he had lost his key. Thus, even if we were to assume that the use of excessive force would require suppression, the record in this case establishes that force was used only as authorized by the CPL (see, CPL 690.50).
Yesawich Jr., J.P., Levine, Mercure, Mahoney and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.