Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Neither the defendant nor his attorney made any objection when the sentencing court imposed the mandatory surcharge of $100 (see, Penal Law § 60.35 [a]). Further, the record contains no indication that the defendant either applied for resentencing pursuant to CPL 420.10 (5) or otherwise sought a waiver of the surcharge on the basis that payment of it would "work an unreasonable hardship" (CPL 420.35). The defendant's argument on appeal that the sentencing court abused its discretion in failing to waive the surcharge is therefore not preserved for review (see, People v. Baker, 130 A.D.2d 582). The defendant's arguments concerning the constitutionality of the mandatory surcharge are meritless (see, People v. Barnes, 62 N.Y.2d 702; People v. Brown, 105 A.D.2d 509). In any event, the defendant's application for a waiver of the surcharge is premature (see, People v. Peralta, 127 A.D.2d 803, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 953). Mollen, P.J., Bracken, Rubin, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.