Opinion
March 31, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Tejada, J.).
Even if we were to assume that the testimony challenged by defendant suggested the existence of contemporaneous uncharged drug sales ( cf., People v. Granado, 222 A.D.2d 286, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 848), the testimony would have been admissible to complete the narrative and as relevant to the People's explanation regarding the absence of the pre-recorded buy money from the currency found in defendant's possession ( see, People v. Pressley, 216 A.D.2d 202, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 800). Any possible prejudice was effectively eliminated by the court's limiting instructions, which were presumably understood and followed by the jury ( see, People v. Davis, 58 N.Y.2d 1102, 1104). Defendant's argument that the arresting officer's testimony improperly bolstered the undercover's drive-by confirmatory identification is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find the argument meritless since, it is well settled that in buy and bust cases an arresting officer's testimony that the undercover officer made a confirmatory drive-by identification does not constitute improper bolstering ( People v. Grant, 221 A.D.2d 155, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 921; People v. Alvarez, 211 A.D.2d 425, affd 86 N.Y.2d 761).
Concur — Ellerin, J. P., Wallach, Tom and Mazzarelli, JJ.