Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Although the defendant correctly points out that the People have an obligation to disclose the existence of any agreement between the prosecution and a witness to induce the witness to testify (People v Novoa, 70 N.Y.2d 490; People v Cwikla, 46 N.Y.2d 434; see generally, Brady v Maryland, 373 U.S. 83), in this case, there was no agreement in existence which might have induced the subject witness to testify against the defendant. Thus, there was no Brady violation (see, People v Miller, 174 A.D.2d 989, 990).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find that they are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Rosario, 142 A.D.2d 743), or without merit. Rosenblatt, J.P., Lawrence, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.