Opinion
December 1, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Martin Rettinger, J.).
Defendant's challenges to the undercover officer's testimony explaining "buy and bust" operations have not been preserved for appellate review by timely and specific objection ( see, People v. Tevaha, 84 N.Y.2d 879), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review them, we would find that the testimony was properly admissible as background information and did not link defendant to a large scale drug operation ( see, People v. Ramos, 192 A.D.2d 324, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1078).
Defendant's challenge to the language employed by the court in conveying the reasonable doubt standard requires preservation ( People v. Thomas, 50 N.Y.2d 467; see also, People v. Robinson, 88 N.Y.2d 1001), and we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the charge, read as a whole, conveyed the proper legal standards ( People v. Fields, 87 N.Y.2d 821).
Concur — Milonas, J. P., Ellerin, Rubin and Mazzarelli, JJ.