Opinion
March 16, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Jones, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree on the ground that the People failed to prove his identity as the person who sold the cocaine to the undercover police officer. In addition, the defendant contends that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction for criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, asserting that there was no showing that he had dominion and control over the cocaine seized from a nearby fence pole. However, these issues have not been preserved for appellate review since the defendant failed to advance them in support of his motion to dismiss the indictment at the end of the People's case (see, People v Burns, 170 A.D.2d 690; People v Cardona, 136 A.D.2d 556). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt.
The defendant's further contention that the court committed reversible error when it failed to charge the jury, sua sponte, regarding its consideration of the circumstantial evidence is also unpreserved as a matter of law since the defendant neither requested the charge nor took exception to the charge as given (People v Scotto, 177 A.D.2d 668; People v Hill, 174 A.D.2d 633; People v Bossett, 157 A.D.2d 734).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Balletta, J.P., O'Brien, Copertino and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.