Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant waived his objection that the indictment was duplicitous by failing to raise the issue before the trial court (see, People v Branch, 73 A.D.2d 230, 234-235). While a claim that an indictment is jurisdictionally defective may be raised for the first time on appeal "an indictment is jurisdictionally defective only if it does not effectively charge the defendant with the commission of a particular crime" (People v Iannone, 45 N.Y.2d 589, 600). A claim that an indictment is duplicitous (CPL 200.30) is not directed to the failure of any count to effectively charge the defendant with the commission of a crime, but rather to the fact that it effectively charges him with the commission of more than one crime. Thus, the defendant's failure to raise the issue of duplicity at the trial level precludes him from raising it on appeal (see, People v Branch, supra; People v Nicholson, 98 A.D.2d 876).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions, including the claim that his sentence was excessive, and find them to be without merit. Thompson, J.P., Brown, Niehoff and Rubin, JJ., concur.