Opinion
October 2, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Orgera, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his challenge to the admission of testimony by a police witness that, in the witness's experience, pre-recorded money is not recovered from drug dealers in "about 50 percent" of arrests (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Tevaha, 84 N.Y.2d 879). In any event, we reject the defendant's contention that he was denied a fair trial by the admission of this testimony since it was necessary to explain the absence of the pre-recorded money on the defendant (see, People v. Tevaha, 204 A.D.2d 92, affd 84 N.Y.2d 879, supra; People v. Ellsworth, 176 A.D.2d 127; cf., People v Kelsey, 194 A.D.2d 248), particularly in light of the defendant's repeated and extensive focus during trial on the fact that the pre-recorded money was not recovered from him in the instant case (cf., People v. McKnight, 144 A.D.2d 702).
The trial court's Sandoval ruling was not an improvident exercise of discretion (see, People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371; People v. Carrasquillo, 204 A.D.2d 735; People v. Moise, 199 A.D.2d 423; People v. King, 187 A.D.2d 612; People v. Otero, 184 A.D.2d 484; People v. Kyser, 147 A.D.2d 590; People v. Rahman, 62 A.D.2d 968, affd 46 N.Y.2d 882).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, without merit. Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.