Opinion
May 20, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph A. Mazur, J.).
Defendant's objection to the testimony of the arresting officer on hearsay grounds was insufficient to preserve his claim on appeal of prejudicial bolstering (People v Qualls, 55 N.Y.2d 733), and defendant cannot rely on objections to the undercover officer's testimony made by counsel for the codefendant to preserve the issue for appellate review as a matter of law (People v Buckley, 75 N.Y.2d 843, 846). In any event, the testimony of the undercover officer, together with the testimony of the arresting officer, regarding the descriptions of the drug sellers radioed and received was properly admitted to provide a necessary explanation of the events which precipitated defendant's arrest (People v Sarmiento, 168 A.D.2d 328, 329, affd 77 N.Y.2d 976).
As defendant failed to take exception to the verdict at the trial level, he has failed to preserve any claim of error for appellate review as a matter of law (People v Alfaro, 66 N.Y.2d 985, 987). In any event, the thrust of the trial court's charge indicated clearly that the sale count referred only to the two vials of crack cocaine sold to the undercover officer, and that the possession count referred only to the 10 additional vials of crack cocaine in the clear plastic bag found at defendant's feet. Additionally, the verdict sheet given to the jury indicated that the two counts were to be considered by the jury separately, and not in the alternative, and the jury's verdict indicates its understanding that the counts were to be considered separately. Thus, despite the trial court's inadvertent instruction regarding alternative consideration, the charge as a whole conveyed, and the jury understood, the appropriate legal standard (see, People v Coleman, 70 N.Y.2d 817).
We have considered defendant's additional claims of error and find them to be meritless.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Kupferman, Asch and Rubin, JJ.