Opinion
October 15, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Groh, J.).
Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.
The defendant contends that the People failed to present legally sufficient proof that he possessed 500 milligrams of "pure" cocaine (see, Penal Law § 220.06) because the testimony of the prosecution's expert witness regarding the weight of the cocaine was based on a hearsay report. The expert, who performed a chemical analysis of the cocaine, testified that she calculated its pure weight based in part upon the results of a mass spectrometry test which she did not perform. We find that this issue is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law since no objection was made on this ground during the expert's testimony (see, Hambsch v. New York City Tr. Auth., 63 N.Y.2d 723). In any event, the defendant has not established on the record before us that the expert's opinion was inadmissible (see, e.g., People v. Sugden, 35 N.Y.2d 453; People v Fitzgibbon, 166 A.D.2d 745; Holshek v. Stokes, 122 A.D.2d 777; Tinao v. City of New York, 112 A.D.2d 363; cf., People v. Jones, 73 N.Y.2d 427).
We find that the sentences imposed were not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Sullivan, J.P., Lawrence, O'Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.