Opinion
March 23, 2000
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald Zwiebel, J.), rendered March 25, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 4+ to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.
Kenneth S. Levine, for respondent.
Janice Gittelman, for defendant-appellant.
SULLIVAN, P.J., TOM, MAZZARELLI, WALLACH, BUCKLEY, JJ.
Defendant's suppression motion was properly denied. The arresting officer's testimony was sufficient to establish probable cause (see, People v. Maldonado, 86 N.Y.2d 631). There was no need for the officer to define the term "positive buy" because the phrase has a recognized and accepted meaning in law enforcement (see, People v. Acevedo, 179 A.D.2d 465, 467, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 996).
The record establishes that following the court's explanation to defendant of his right to be present at sidebar conferences with prospective jurors, defendant voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waived such rights (see, People v. Vargas, 88 N.Y.2d 363). We conclude from the totality of the record that the court's warnings to defendant concerning the disadvantages of attending sidebar conferences did not affect the voluntariness of the waiver (see, People v. McLean, 246 A.D.2d 445, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 975).
Defendant has failed to preserve his present challenges to various comments by the prosecutor during summation, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that the challenged portions of the prosecutor's summation were responsive to defense counsel's summation and were fair comment on the evidence adduced at trial (see, People v. Overlee, 236 A.D.2d 133, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 976;People v. D'Alessandro, 184 A.D.2d 114, 118-119, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 884).
Defendant's challenges to the court's charge to the jury are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were to review these claims, we would find that the court's charge, when read in its entirety, conveyed the proper standards (see, People v. Fields, 87 N.Y.2d 821). We have considered and rejected defendant's remaining claims.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.