Opinion
November 7, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Allen, 165 A.D.2d 786). The question of credibility was properly presented to the trier of fact, and we perceive no basis for disturbing its resolution of this issue (see, People v. Draksin, 145 A.D.2d 500; People v Harris, 133 A.D.2d 649, 651). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we find that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The brief discussion of certain ministerial matters conducted prior to the defendant being produced at the Sandoval and Molineux hearings (see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371; People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264) did not violate the defendant's right to be present at all material stages of the trial (see, People v. Dokes, 79 N.Y.2d 656, 660; People v. Velasco, 77 N.Y.2d 469, 472). Moreover, the trial court, after conducting the hearings, did not improvidently exercise its discretion in permitting a witness to testify that drug activity was involved in the dispute between the defendant and the deceased, as her testimony that the deceased owed the defendant money from the sale of drugs was clearly probative of the defendant's motive for the shooting (see, e.g., People v. Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350, 360; People v. Graves, 194 A.D.2d 925, 926-927). The trial court properly weighed the relevant factors of probative value and prejudicial effect in reaching its determination (see, People v Knox, 126 A.D.2d 748; see generally, People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233).
Nor do we find that the prosecutor's summation was so permeated with improper vouching for the credibility of the People's witness as to have unduly prejudiced the defendant and deprived him of a fair trial (see, People v. Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396; People v. Ashwal, 39 N.Y.2d 105; People v. Draksin, 145 A.D.2d 500, 501, supra). The prosecutor's discussion of the credibility of the People's witness was appropriate, given that the defense had put her credibility in issue (see, People v Jefferson, 136 A.D.2d 655, 657; People v. Freeman, 123 A.D.2d 784).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those raised in his supplemental pro se brief, are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05), or without merit. Bracken, J.P., Santucci, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.