Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
In addition, we conclude that the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's application for a severance since "[t]he defendant failed to make a * * * showing that he would be unduly and genuinely prejudiced by the joint trial" (People v Telford, 134 A.D.2d 632; People v Cunningham, 110 A.D.2d 708). Moreover, the record does not indicate that the failure to sever resulted in an injustice or impairment of the defendant's rights (see, People v Lopez, 68 N.Y.2d 683; People v Cruz, 66 N.Y.2d 61, 72; People v Payne, 35 N.Y.2d 22).
The defendant's claim with respect to the People's delay in producing Rosario material is unpreserved for appellate review since he never moved for a mistrial on this ground (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, the record reveals that the defendant was not substantially prejudiced by the delay (see, People v Ranghelle, 69 N.Y.2d 56, 63) inasmuch as the material was produced before defense counsel examined the witness and counsel did not seek an adjournment (see, People v Barreto, 143 A.D.2d 920; People v Fridella, 126 A.D.2d 561).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Mangano, J.P., Bracken, Kunzeman and Harwood, JJ., concur.