Opinion
April 25, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald Zweibel, J.).
There is no merit to defendant's contention that the prosecutor's response to a grand juror's question as to whether there was physical evidence of rape — "that that should not concern you at this time * * * [and] will be dealt with at a later time, in a different forum" — impaired the integrity of the Grand Jury within the meaning of CPL 210.35 (5) (see, People v Darby, 75 N.Y.2d 449, 454-455). We also reject defendant's contentions that the prosecutor's summation deprived him of a fair trial, and find that the court did not abuse its discretion in allowing evidence of uncharged drug dealing by defendant that tended to show his motive for participating in the kidnapping, rape and sodomy of the complaining witness (see, People v Hudy, 73 N.Y.2d 40, 55).
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Ellerin, Rubin, Williams and Tom, JJ.