Judgment unani
We reject defendant’s contention that the court erred in refusing to admit into evidence a police report prepared by an investigator who was called as a witness by defendant. Although the report may have qualified as a business record under CPLR 4518 (a) (see, People v Guidice, 83 NY2d 630), a proper foundation for its admission was not established (see, People v Cratsley, 86 NY2d 81, 89). The contention that the People bolstered complainant’s testimony with evidence of prior consistent statements is unpreserved for our review {see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Tinsley, 159 AD2d 602), and we decline to exercise our power to review the issue as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).
Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe {see, CPL 470.15 [6] [b]). "The mere fact that defendant was ultimately sentenced to a term of incarceration greater than that offered as a part of the plea bargain does not render his sentence harsh or excessive” (People v Bradley [appeal No. 1], 184 AD2d 1041, lv denied 80 NY2d 927; see, People v Stephens [appeal No. 1], 219 AD2d 854, 855, lv denied 87 NY2d 851).
We have examined defendant’s remaining contentions and conclude that they are without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Smith, J.—Rape, 1st Degree.) Present—Green, J. P., Pine, Wesely, Callahan and Davis, JJ.