Opinion
March 26, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (John A.K. Bradley, J.).
Under the standards set forth in People v Cronin ( 60 N.Y.2d 430), it was not error to allow a detective to be qualified as an expert for the purpose of explaining the methodology of street drug sales, with particular reference to the use of beepers and the reason for and means of record-keeping, by street dealers (see, e.g., People v Roman, 171 A.D.2d 562, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 1000; People v Matos, 165 A.D.2d 767, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 988; People v Atkinson, 122 A.D.2d 385). Nor did the court err as a matter of law in refusing to charge the jury that the police officers were interested witnesses (People v Romero, 136 A.D.2d 659; People v Melvin, 128 A.D.2d 647; compare, People v Gomez, 137 A.D.2d 556, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 896).
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Carro, Ellerin, Asch and Smith, JJ.