Opinion
November 29, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Thomas, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Within minutes after an undercover detective observed the defendant hand an unapprehended drug purchaser a waxpaper packet in exchange for money, the defendant was arrested and found in possession of six waxpaper packets containing heroin and $246 in currency. The defendant claims that the trial court improperly admitted into evidence the $246 recovered from him. We find the defendant's argument to be meritless. In cases involving possession of illegal drugs with the intent to sell, "[e]vidence of money found on the defendant's person at the time of his arrest [is] probative of [his] intent" and therefore this evidence was properly admitted (People v Rivera, 177 A.D.2d 662, 663; see also, People v Hernandez, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 245-247; People v Martin, 163 A.D.2d 491).
The defendant further claims that, in his summation, the prosecutor improperly referred to the defendant as a "candy vendor" in the business of selling drugs. The defendant asserts that this had the effect of suggesting to the jury that the defendant was involved in other uncharged crimes. We disagree. The record indicates that defense counsel did not interpose a timely objection to the prosecutor's remark, and consequently, the alleged error has not been preserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Young, 123 A.D.2d 366, 367). In any event, reversal is not warranted since the remark constituted fair comment on the admissible evidence and the prosecutor merely used an analogy to show the relevance of the money found on the defendant at the time of his arrest. The record indicates that the prosecutor referred to a "candy vendor" or "newspaperman vendor" to illustrate that a seller should have cash in his possession after a sale of any item, as would the defendant if he had just sold a packet of heroin.
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05), or without merit. Bracken, J.P., Miller, Lawrence and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.