is not automatically entitled to an unredacted copy, as such reports consist of confidential material which may be appropriately withheld from disclosure (Matter of Shader, 233 AD2d at 717). To the extent defendant moves to challenge the accuracy of the presentence report, such challenges must be raised before sentencing (Matter of Hughes v New York City Dept. of Probation, 281 AD2d 229 [2001]; Matter of Antonucci v Nelson, 298 AD2d 388, 389 [2002]; Matter of Sciaraffo v New York City Dept. of Probation, 248 AD2d 477 [1998]; Matter of Salahuddin v Mitchell, 232 AD2d 903, 904 [1996]; Matter of Salerno v Murphy, 292 AD2d 837, 837-838 [2002]; People v Banchs-Rivera, 168 Misc 2d 72, 73 [1996]). The Probation Department is directed to provide a copy of the presentence report to defendant for the purpose of preparing an administrative appeal. The Probation Department is further directed to redact any confidential material which may be appropriately withheld from disclosure including, but not limited to, names, addresses and telephone numbers. [1] Controlling authority establishes that there is no constitutional right to a copy of a presentence report (People v Peace, 18 NY2d 230 [1966]). [2] The Appellate Division dismissed defendant's appeal on the ground that no appeal lies, either of right or by permission, from the denial of a motion for the disclosure of a presentence report. [3] At least one lower court in the Second Department has addressed this issue (People v Tatta, 2001 NY Slip Op 40407[U] [2001]). To the extent that the court in Tatta followed the holdings in Armer and Wright, this court respectfully disagrees.