— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kohm, J.), rendered February 24, 2014, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (three counts) and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant’s contention that his convictions were not supported by legally sufficient evidence is unpreserved for ap *841 pellate review (see People v Gray, 86 NY2d 10 [1995]). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see People v Contes, 60 NY2d 620 [1983]), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon our independent review pursuant to CPL 470.15 (5), we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see People v Romero, 7 NY3d 633 [2006]).
The defendant contends that the evidence of his guilt was wholly circumstantial and that the Supreme Court erred in failing to give a circumstantial evidence charge. This contention is unpreserved for appellate review, since the defendant did not request a circumstantial evidence charge or object to the charge as given (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Smith, 127 AD3d 790 [2015]; People v Joseph, 114 AD3d 878, 879 [2014]; People v Wall, 92 AD3d 812, 813 [2012]; People v Reyes, 45 AD3d 785, 786 [2007]; People v Hall, 181 AD2d 791 [1992]). In any event, this contention is without merit, as the evidence was not wholly circumstantial.
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).
The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved because it was not advanced as a ground for suppression at the trial level and is not properly before the Court on this appeal (see People v Graham, 25 NY3d 994, 996-997 [2015]; People v Turriago, 90 NY2d 77, 83-84 [1997]; People v Badia, 130 AD3d 744, 745 [2015]; People v Jones, 81 AD2d 22, 39-40 [1981]).