Opinion
June 25, 1990
Appeal from the County Court, Westchester County (Cowhey, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's conviction arose out of his sale of cocaine to an undercover police officer in New Rochelle on April 30, 1987, and May 1, 1987. The undercover police officer, who had seen the defendant on prior occasions in New Rochelle, identified him during the trial as the seller of the drugs. An informant arranged the first transaction, but was not present at the time of the actual sales. Under these circumstances, there is no merit to the defendant's argument that the court should have given a missing witness charge with respect to the informant (see, People v. Dianda, 70 N.Y.2d 894; People v. Paulin, 70 N.Y.2d 685; People v. Gonzalez, 68 N.Y.2d 424).
The defendant further argues that the informant's identity should have been disclosed. However, this argument has not been preserved for appellate review, and, in any event, is without merit under the circumstances, (see, CPL 470.05; People v Goggins, 34 N.Y.2d 163; People v. Chavis, 113 A.D.2d 896).
Contrary to the defendant's argument, the prosecutor did not improperly elicit testimony from him concerning a prior arrest which was not the subject of the court's earlier Sandoval ruling. The defendant admitted the circumstances regarding this arrest freely and voluntarily during his cross-examination, in response to the prosecutor's question, "And why is it that you stopped boxing professionally?"
We have examined the defendant's remaining arguments and find them to be unpreserved for appellate review or without merit (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137; People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 109; People v. James, 146 A.D.2d 712). Mangano, P.J., Kunzeman, Rubin and Balletta, JJ., concur.