Opinion
September 25, 1989
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, reversal of the judgment is not required because the People were unable to produce the notes made by one of the arresting officers which contained the description of the perpetrator as given to him by the undercover officer involved in this so-called "buy and bust" operation. Those notes had been discarded by the officer, but not until he transferred the information contained therein to a report completed on the day of the defendant's arrest. The contents of that report were made available to defense counsel, and there is no evidence that the notes were destroyed in bad faith or in an effort to frustrate the defendant's right to cross-examination (see, People v. Vasquez, 141 A.D.2d 880; People v. Jones, 130 A.D.2d 943). Thus, the omission does not require reversal of the judgment (see, People v. Martinez, 71 N.Y.2d 937; People v. Best, 145 A.D.2d 499; People v. Vasquez, supra).
The testimony adduced as to the circumstances surrounding the handling of the cocaine purchased from the defendant by the undercover officer and the prerecorded money used to make that purchase "`provide[s] reasonable assurances of the identity and unchanged condition'" of that evidence (People v. Julian, 41 N.Y.2d 340, 343; People v. Smith, 130 A.D.2d 783). Thus, any deficiencies in the chain of custody went to the weight, and not the admissibility, of this evidence (see, People v. Newman, 129 A.D.2d 742).
Additionally, we find that neither the court's charge in general nor the way in which it marshaled the evidence was erroneous (see, People v. Saunders, 64 N.Y.2d 665; People v Bell, 38 N.Y.2d 116; cf., People v. Erts, 138 A.D.2d 506, affd 73 N.Y.2d 872), and the defendant was not deprived of the effective assistance of counsel (see, People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137).
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his pro se supplemental brief, and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Brown, J.P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Kooper, JJ., concur.