Opinion
June 6, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Edwin Torres, J.).
The verdict was neither based on insufficient evidence nor against the weight of the evidence. Defendant's business-like behavior and close connection with his codefendant clearly established that he was acting as a "steerer" ( compare, People v Smith, 179 A.D.2d 355, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 953, with People v Rosario, 193 A.D.2d 445, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 708).
Evidence of an uncharged sale was properly received, with adequate although belated limiting instructions ( see, People v Archibald, 211 A.D.2d 451). This bore on defendant's accessorial liability, which was a significant issue notwithstanding his principal defense of mistaken identity ( People v. Carter, 77 N.Y.2d 95, 107, cert denied 499 U.S. 967), and on defendant's intent to sell additional drugs in his constructive possession ( People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 245).
Expert testimony on the behavior of drug dealers was properly received ( People v. Kelsey, 194 A.D.2d 248).
Defendant's contention that he was denied a fair trial by the court's intrusion into the examination of witnesses is unpreserved ( People v. Charleston, 56 N.Y.2d 886), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find no prejudice because the questions of the Court were of a merely clarifying nature ( see, People v. Yut Wai Tom, 53 N.Y.2d 44, 54-61).
Defendant's contention that trial counsel was ineffective for failing to preserve issues that defendant now raises on appeal is without merit ( see, People v. Flores, 84 N.Y.2d 184).
Defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved and without merit.
Concur — Sullivan, J.P., Rosenberger, Wallach, Ross and Mazzarelli, JJ.