Opinion
June 29, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas Galligan, J.).
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People and giving them the benefit of every reasonable inference, the People's evidence clearly established defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620, 621). The evidence against defendant was not incredible as a matter of law (see, People v. Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88).
Defendant failed to preserve his claim that the jury's verdict was repugnant because he failed to object to the alleged repugnancy prior to the discharge of the jury (People v Vasquez, 186 A.D.2d 445, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 795), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review, we would find the verdicts were not repugnant because defendant was charged with three separate offenses, relating to three distinct events, which were established by the testimony of entirely different witnesses (see, People v. Jones, 126 A.D.2d 401, 402-403).
Defendant was not unfairly prejudiced by either the introduction of the undercover officer's testimony, which did not indicate either defendant's presence near or involvement in criminal activity, or the introduction of unmarked cash recovered from defendant. The cash was properly introduced because defendant was charged with multiple cocaine sales and possession with intent to sell (People v. Haynes, 172 A.D.2d 242, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 967).
We have examined defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Ellerin, Rubin and Nardelli, JJ.