Opinion
March 8, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Richard T. Andrias, J.).
Limited background testimony as to methods used by drug dealers was properly received (People v. Kelsey, 194 A.D.2d 248). Defendant failed to preserve his claim that this testimony was inadmissible absent a formal ruling that the officer was an "expert", and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review, we would find it without merit.
The challenged portions of the prosecutor's summation did not exceed the bounds of permissible advocacy (see, People v Galloway, 54 N.Y.2d 396, 399), and were, in any event, harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of guilt.
We find no fault with the court's Sandoval ruling (see, People v. Rahman, 46 N.Y.2d 882).
Defendant's argument concerning the casual references to the presence of schools, in the police descriptions of the scene, was both unpreserved and lacking in merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Ross, Rubin and Williams, JJ.