Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We reject the contention that the evidence adduced at trial was insufficient to demonstrate that defendant was the individual who, on two occasions, sold crack cocaine to an undercover police investigator. Although the testimony of the police officer and the informant was inconsistent in some respects, it was within the province of the jury to resolve those testimonial discrepancies (see, People v Sierra, 169 A.D.2d 682, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 974; People v Walker, 155 A.D.2d 916, 917, lv denied 75 N.Y.2d 819). We do not find the testimony to be so inconsistent that it was incredible as a matter of law (see, People v Shedrick, 104 A.D.2d 263, 274, affd 66 N.Y.2d 1015, rearg denied 67 N.Y.2d 758). Thus, we conclude that the jury verdict was supported by legally sufficient evidence and that it was not against the weight of the evidence (see, People v Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495).
By failing either to object at trial or to request the court to impose a sanction, defendant has failed to preserve for our review the contention that the police officer's destruction of a handwritten note made during the course of the first "buy" amounted to a Rosario violation (see, People v Cheney, 178 A.D.2d 1007, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 945; People v Sierra, supra, at 683). Because we conclude that defendant was not prejudiced by the inadvertent destruction of the note, we decline to reach the issue in the interest of justice (see, People v Sierra, supra; cf., People v Haupt, 71 N.Y.2d 929; People v Sandore, 175 A.D.2d 660, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 1080).