Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contentions that his indictment was defective because several of the individual offenses charged occurred at some time within stated 35-day and 45-day periods, and that the charges were duplicitous are unpreserved for appellate review. The proper method to challenge the facial validity of an indictment is by a pretrial motion to dismiss (see, CPL 210.20, 210.25 Crim. Proc.), brought within the time prescribed by CPL 255.20 (see, People v. Soto, 44 N.Y.2d 683; People v. Stamen, 163 A.D.2d 499; People v. Smith, 113 A.D.2d 905; People v. Di Noia, 105 A.D.2d 799, cert denied 471 U.S. 1022).
The defendant's contention that the prosecution failed to prove that the victim sustained "physical injury" within the meaning of Penal Law § 10.00 (9) and § 120.00 (1) is also unpreserved for appellate review inasmuch as the defendant made no reference to such an argument at the time that he made his motion to dismiss the indictment at the close of the People's case (see, People v Logan, 74 N.Y.2d 859, 860-861; People v. Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858; People v. Gomez, 67 N.Y.2d 843, 844-845; People v. Dekle, 56 N.Y.2d 835, 837).
In addition, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in admitting expert testimony as to the psychological and behavioral characteristics and reaction typically shared by children who are victims of sexual abuse in a familial setting (see, Matter of Nicole V., 71 N.Y.2d 112, 120; People v. Keindl, 68 N.Y.2d 410, 422).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit (see, People v. Pelchat, 62 N.Y.2d 97; People v. Hoke, 62 N.Y.2d 1022; People v. Whalen, 59 N.Y.2d 273). Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Lawrence and O'Brien, JJ., concur.