Opinion
January 19, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the packet of narcotics purchased by the undercover police officer was inadmissible at trial due to the People's failure to establish an adequate chain of custody is without merit. It is well settled that "a chain of custody should be tested not by the satisfaction of a technical series of steps, but by whether the proof satisfies the rationale for requiring an evidentiary foundation" (People v. Julian, 41 N.Y.2d 340, 344). Here, we find that the undercover officer's testimony, combined with that of the Police Department's chemist, provided adequate assurances of the identity and unchanged condition of the contraband (see, People v. Wilson, 150 A.D.2d 628, 630; People v. Donovan, 141 A.D.2d 835, 836-837). Accordingly, the gap in custody between the officer's sealing of the vouchered narcotics envelope and the chemist's receipt thereof shall not operate to bar its admission into evidence (see, People v. Wilson, supra). Indeed, such deficiencies are properly resolved by the jury in its evaluation of the weight of the evidence (see, People v. Julian, supra, at 344; People v Donovan, supra, at 837).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 248), or devoid of merit (see, People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105, 109; People v. Schwartzman, 24 N.Y.2d 241, 244, cert denied 396 U.S. 846; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 83). Lawrence, J.P., Eiber, Miller and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.