Opinion
October 24, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald Zweibel, J.).
Since defense counsel did not object to testimony concerning uncharged crimes and the drug prone area in which the incident took place, and did not request limiting instructions, his current contentions have not been preserved for this Court's review as a matter of law (CPL 470.05; People v. Cuesta, 199 A.D.2d 101, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 870), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Although it would have been the better practice for the prosecutor to have specifically requested an advance ruling before presenting such evidence to the jury ( People v. Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350), any error was harmless since the evidence demonstrated the manner in which the defendant acted in concert ( People v. Carter, 77 N.Y.2d 95, 107, cert denied 499 U.S. 967), was probative on the issue of his possession with intent to sell ( People v. Garcia, 199 A.D.2d 50, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 805), provided a complete and accurate picture of the events in question ( People v. Montanez, 41 N.Y.2d 53, 58), served to prove defendant's identity in the transaction ( People v Marte, 207 A.D.2d 314, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 937), and rebutted the defense contention of nonparticipation ( supra). Moreover, defense counsel himself specifically elicited the details of the various uncharged crimes ( People v. Cuesta, supra).
We have considered defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Kupferman, J.P., Asch, Williams and Tom, JJ.