Opinion
March 18, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Joy, J.).
Ordered that the judgment and amended judgment are affirmed.
While the court may have improperly permitted the prosecutor to attempt to rehabilitate the undercover officer by having the officer read from his buy corroboration report the precise wording of statements attributed to the defendant at the time of the sale (see, People v McClean, 69 N.Y.2d 426; People v Davis, 44 N.Y.2d 269), any error was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt (see, People v Johnson, 57 N.Y.2d 969; People v Jones, 160 A.D.2d 731). This was not a case of misidentification since the defendant admitted that he participated in the transaction. Rather, the defendant claimed that he acted out of fear, which was an issue of fact for the jury to determine, and based on our review of the record we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review since he either failed to object at the time of trial, or, where he did object, it was for reasons other than those which are now raised on appeal (see, People v Fleming, 70 N.Y.2d 947; People v Oliver, 63 N.Y.2d 973; People v Thomas, 50 N.Y.2d 467; People v St. Pierre, 131 A.D.2d 520), and we decline to consider them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Kooper, J.P., Lawrence, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.