Defendant did not object to the imposition of the mandatory surcharge pursuant to Penal Law § 60.35, nor did defendant argue that this penalty assessment violated either defendant's right to equal protection or to due process of law. Under these circumstances, the claims now raised by defendant are unpreserved for review as a matter of law. (People v. Naumann, 131 A.D.2d 705; People v. Burt, 142 A.D.2d 794; People v. Carlton, 133 A.D.2d 776.) In any event, defendant's challenge to the constitutionality of the mandatory surcharge is without merit. (People v. Barnes, 62 N.Y.2d 702; People v. Clark, 116 A.D.2d 890; People v. Dodson, 96 A.D.2d 1116, 1118.) Nor has the defendant shown that the mandatory surcharge was improperly imposed, since no showing has been made that the surcharge worked an unreasonable hardship on defendant or his immediate family. (CPL 420.35.) Further, we note that defendant apparently paid the surcharge, and never sought a waiver at the conclusion of his term of imprisonment. (See, People v. Cudak, 151 A.D.2d 770. )
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.