Ordered that the sentence is affirmed insofar as appealed from.
The sentence, including the imposition of the mandatory felony surcharge, was neither unduly harsh nor excessive. In addition, at the time of sentencing, the defendant did not challenge the imposition of the mandatory felony surcharge on the grounds that it was unconstitutional or that it should have been waived based upon his alleged indigency. Accordingly, these contentions are not preserved for review as a matter of law (see, CPL 470.05; People v Baker, 130 A.D.2d 582), and we decline to address them in the interest of justice. Lawrence, J.P., Weinstein, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.