Opinion
September 27, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Goldstein, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Lewis, 182 A.D.2d 777; People v McKinnon, 176 A.D.2d 193; People v Santiago, 176 A.D.2d 521). It is well established that resolution of issues of credibility, as well as the weight to be accorded to the evidence presented, are primarily questions to be determined by the finder of fact, which saw and heard the witnesses (see, People v Gaimari, 176 N.Y. 84). Its determination should be accorded great weight on appeal and should not be disturbed unless clearly unsupported by the record (see, People v Garafolo, 44 A.D.2d 86, 88). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilty was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant also contends that he was deprived of a fair trial because the testimony of the arresting officer regarding the descriptions of the perpetrators he had received from the undercover officer constituted hearsay that impermissibly bolstered the undercover officer's testimony in this vein. However, since the defense counsel did not object to the challenged testimony on the specific ground now asserted, the claimed error is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05). In any event, any error in the admission of such testimony (see, People v Lyons, 178 A.D.2d 492, affd 81 N.Y.2d 753; People v Briggs, 156 A.D.2d 574) must be deemed harmless in light of the ample opportunity which the undercover officer had to observe the defendant during the drug sale and the undercover officer's strong identification testimony (see, People v Johnson, 57 N.Y.2d 969; People v McGill, 183 A.D.2d 730; People v Franklin, 181 A.D.2d 790).
The defendant's contention regarding the inadequacy of the court's adverse inference charge, imposed as an appropriate sanction for the destruction of the scratch paper upon which the arresting officer had originally written the descriptions of the perpetrators (see, People v Wallace, 76 N.Y.2d 953; People v Rosario, 9 N.Y.2d 286, cert denied 368 U.S. 866), is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Thomas, 50 N.Y.2d 467) and, in any event, without merit (see, People v Martinez, 71 N.Y.2d 937; People v Morillo, 181 A.D.2d 532).
Finally, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80; People v Perez, 150 A.D.2d 395). Thompson, J.P., Miller, Santucci and Joy, JJ., concur.