The Legal Aid Bureau of Buffalo, Inc., Buffalo (Sherry A. Chase of counsel), for defendant-appellant.

John J. Flynn, District Attorney, Buffalo (Danielle E. Phillips of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Kenneth F. Case, J.), rendered March 22, 2019. The judgment convicted defendant upon a jury verdict of murder in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of murder in the second degree (Penal Law § 125.25 [1]). We reject defendant's contention that County Court erred in admitting in evidence a swab containing DNA. The testimony at trial established that the change in the swab's packaging was not " 'a material and prejudicial change in the condition or nature of the [swab]' " (People v Jordan, 154 AD3d 1176, 1178 [3d Dept 2017], quoting People v Julian, 41 NY2d 340, 344 [1977]), and any deficiencies in the chain of custody went to the weight, not the admissibility, of the evidence (see People v Cleveland, 273 AD2d 787, 788 [4th Dept 2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 864 [2000]).

We likewise reject defendant's contention that the court erred in refusing to suppress evidence seized pursuant to a warrantless search of his vehicle. Contrary to defendant's contention, the record establishes that he voluntarily provided the police with written consent to search his vehicle (see People v Fioretti, 155 AD3d 1662, 1663 [4th Dept 2017], lv denied 30 NY3d 1104 [2018]).

Contrary to defendant's further contention, the conviction is supported by legally sufficient evidence, notwithstanding the fact that the People's case was based largely on circumstantial proof (see People v Hernandez, 79 AD3d 1683, 1683 [4th Dept 2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 895 [2011]). Viewing the evidence in light of the elements of the crime as charged to the jury (see People v Danielson, 9 NY3d 342, 349 [2007]), we reject defendant's additional contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence (see generally People v Bleakley, 69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]).

Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court erred in failing to excuse for cause a prospective juror (see People v Stepney, 93 AD3d 1297, 1297-1298 [4th Dept 2012], lv denied 19 NY3d 968 [2012]), and we decline to exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Defendant's contention that the court improperly imposed an enhanced sentence lacks merit because the court did not impose an enhanced sentence (cf. People v Burns, 279 AD2d 586, 587 [2d Dept 2001]; People v Parker, 271 AD2d 63, 69-71 [4th Dept 2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 967 [2000]). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Peradotto, J.P., Carni, Lindley, Curran and Bannister, JJ.