Ordered that the judgment and order are affirmed.
On appeal, the defendant argues, inter alia, that the conspiracy count of his indictment was defective because all of the overt acts listed in support of that count occurred prior to any agreement between the defendant and the codefendant. We disagree.
We note that the defendant's claim is unpreserved for appellate review since he failed to properly raise this claim in a pretrial motion to dismiss the indictment (see, People v Iannone, 45 N.Y.2d 589; People v Di Noia, 105 A.D.2d 799; People v Byrdsong, 133 A.D.2d 164). In any event, despite the defendant's contention, we find that the indictment alleged an overt act which he committed in furtherance of the conspiracy (see, Penal Law § 105.20; People v Bongarzone, 116 A.D.2d 164).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find that they are without merit. Balletta, J.P., Eiber, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.