On appeal from a judgment convicting him of arson in the third degree (Penal Law § 150.10), defendant contends that County Court erred in admitting testimony concerning the "positive indications" of the accelerant-sniffing dog because the foundation proof was insufficient. Defendant failed to preserve that issue for our review ( see, CPL 470.05). Were we to reach the merits, we would agree with defendant that the People failed to lay a proper foundation to establish the reliability of the dog ( see, People v. Price, 54 N.Y.2d 557, 664) because neither fire investigator testified to the past performance or effectiveness of the dog as an accelerant-sniffing dog. The error in the admission of the investigators' testimony, however, is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Proof of defendant's guilt is overwhelming, and there is no significant probability that the error contributed to defendant's conviction ( see, People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230, 242).

We reject the contentions of defendant that his statement was obtained in violation of his right to counsel ( see, People v Ramos, 40 N.Y.2d 610) and was not sufficiently corroborated (see, CPL 60.50; People v. Booden, 69 N.Y.2d 185, 187). Finally, we conclude that the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe.