Opinion
June 19, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Orgera, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The trial court properly allowed the arresting police officer to testify that he had a conversation with an unidentified woman to complete the narrative and to explain why the officer targeted the defendant for observation (see, People v. Marte, 207 A.D.2d 314; People v. Coleman, 205 A.D.2d 795; People v. McDowell, 191 A.D.2d 515). Neither the exact words nor the substance of the conversation was admitted into evidence. Thus, the testimony's probative value outweighed any possible prejudice to the defendant (see, People v. Crespo, 203 A.D.2d 182), and it was not error to deny the defendant's motion for a mistrial, which was the only remedy that the defendant requested.
The defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that his conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree was not proven by legally sufficient evidence because the People failed to prove the weight of the cocaine in his possession and that he knew it weighed 500 milligrams or more (see, CPL 470.05; People v Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10; People v. Logan, 74 N.Y.2d 859). We decline to reach this issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we find that the verdict is not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The sentence that was imposed is not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). The defendant's challenge to the mandatory surcharge is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Santos, 176 A.D.2d 245) and, in any event, premature (see, People v. Burke, 204 A.D.2d 345). Pizzuto, J.P., Hart, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.