Opinion
May 2, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (John Bradley, J.).
Evidence of three uncharged apparent narcotic transactions which took place immediately prior to the undercover's drug buy of $15 worth of cocaine was properly admitted to enable the People to prove the criminal possession with intent to sell count as charged in the indictment, and was also properly admitted as part of the factual background which allowed the officers to explain why the defendant was initially targeted as a drug seller (People v Grant, 181 A.D.2d 579; People v Marte, 207 A.D.2d 314). We also note that the trial court gave the jury an instruction on the limited use of this testimony prior to deliberation.
It was proper for the court to allow the officer to testify that prerecorded buy money is found in the seller's possession in most instances of arrests for drug sales (People v Tevaha, 204 A.D.2d 92, affd 84 N.Y.2d 879). Said testimony was elicited by the prosecutor only after the defense raised the issue of the absence of buy money in this case and the substance of that testimony was favorable to the defense here (see, People v Woney, 205 A.D.2d 480, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 835). Finally, we note that the sentence imposed was not excessive under the circumstances.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.