Opinion
March 25, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Hanophy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Pursuant to its powers under CPL 290.10, the court properly waited until after the People's case to determine whether to dismiss the weapon possession count. Furthermore, the defendant was not prejudiced by the fact that the jury heard testimony regarding his possession of a gun at the time of his arrest, since this testimony constituted "background information necessary to complete the narrative of events leading to the defendant's arrest", and was "inextricably interwoven" with the description of the arrest ( see, People v Catala, 198 A.D.2d 293, 294, citing People v Castro, 101 A.D.2d 392, affd 65 N.Y.2d 683; People v Ely, 68 N.Y.2d 520, 529; People v Ventimiglia, 52 N.Y.2d 350).
The sentence imposed is not excessive ( see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Bracken, J.P., O'Brien, Santucci and Goldstein, JJ., concur.