Opinion
February 27, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Franklin Weissberg, J.).
Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the People ( People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish defendant's guilt of the crime charged. Upon an independent review of the facts, we find the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Under the circumstances presented, the trained narcotics officer had sufficient time to observe the seller during the sale and provided a description to her backup officer which was sufficiently detailed to enable him to locate easily the person described ( see, People v. Morales, 37 N.Y.2d 262, 271; People v Smith, 198 A.D.2d 187, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 810). That no prerecorded buy money or drugs were recovered from defendant or his codefendant does not preclude a finding of guilt ( People v Walker, 186 A.D.2d 62, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 767).
The trial court's determination to reread a portion of its original charge in its supplemental instruction, rather than including additional language requested by defense counsel, was proper since the jury's note specifically requested a read-back of that particular portion, and requested nothing more ( see, People v. Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296, cert denied 459 U.S. 847).
Defendant's contention that the admission of the backup officer's testimony concerning the witness's arrest of another individual "in close proximity" to defendant constituted evidence of uncharged crimes and deprived him of a fair trial is unpreserved (CPL 470.05) and, in any event, without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Rubin, Kupferman and Williams, JJ.