Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree because there was no showing that he had dominion and control over the narcotics seized. However, this issue is not preserved for appellate review since the defendant failed to advance it before the trial court in support of his motion to dismiss the indictment at the close of the People's case (see, People v Hood, 156 A.D.2d 468; People v Cardona, 136 A.D.2d 556). Under the circumstances of this case, we decline to review this contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
The sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive under the circumstances (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 83). Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.