Opinion
2637.
Decided January 6, 2004.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald Zweibel, J.), rendered December 15, 2000, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 15 years to life, unanimously affirmed.
Jeffrey W. Davis, for Respondent.
Marc C. Dely, for Defendant-Appellant.
Pro Se.
Before: Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Williams, Friedman, JJ.
Defendant's claim that his right of confrontation was violated when the undercover officer identified himself only by his shield number during his testimony is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Contrary to defendant's argument, a Confrontation Clause argument requires a specific contemporaneous objection ( see e.g. People v. Kello, 96 N.Y.2d 740, 743-744; People v. Maher, 89 N.Y.2d 456, 462-463). In this case, as a result of the lack of objection, the People were never called upon to establish a need for anonymity ( see People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10). Were we to review this claim, we would find that the fact that the undercover officer testified anonymously did not cause defendant any prejudice ( see People v. Mulligan, 298 A.D.2d 233, lv denied 99 N.Y.2d 562).
The People established a proper chain of custody for the introduction of prerecorded buy money ( see People v. Julian, 41 N.Y.2d 340). There is no evidence that the money recovered from defendant was commingled with money recovered from another person arrested along with him.
To the extent that the existing record permits review, we conclude that defendant received effective assistance of counsel ( see People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708, 713-714; see also Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668).
We have considered and rejected the remaining claims contained in defendant's pro se supplemental brief.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.