Opinion
April 6, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, Max Sayah, J., Arlene Silverman, J.
Defendant's claims that the observing officer's description was too vague to give the arresting officer probable cause to arrest, and that the reference at trial to a buyer who had passed through a school yard constituted prejudicial evidence of an uncharged crime, are both unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law (People v Carmona, 172 A.D.2d 151, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 963; see, People v Clarke, 81 N.Y.2d 777), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. If we were to review, we would find that the description was sufficiently detailed and the response sufficiently swift to justify the arrest, and that the reference to a school yard was relevant to showing the buyer's path, did not necessarily suggest, and certainly was not offered as proof that a sale had taken place in or near a school yard, and to the extent it did so suggest, was not so prejudicial as to warrant a new trial. We have reviewed defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Wallach, Nardelli, Williams and Mazzarelli, JJ.