Opinion
May 1, 1989
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Harrington, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the People failed to prove his participation in the sales beyond a reasonable doubt was not preserved for appellate review since it was not raised with specificity in the trial court (see, People v Bynum, 70 N.Y.2d 858, affg 125 A.D.2d 207; People v Bailey, 146 A.D.2d 788). In any event, we find that the evidence, when viewed in the light most favorable to the People (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant also contends that the People should have been precluded from showing the jury a videotape of the drug transactions due to their failure to comply with a prior order of the court which had directed the prosecutor to provide the defendant with a copy of the tape. We note that the defendant did not move to compel such discovery or to preclude the admission of the tape nor did he object to its admission into evidence. Having failed to alert the trial court to the People's alleged failure to comply with its order, the defendant may not raise the issue for the first time on appeal (CPL 470.05; People v Thomas, 50 N.Y.2d 467). In any event, the defendant did not demonstrate that he was prejudiced by the failure of the People to provide him with a copy of the complete tape (see, People v Rosario, 124 A.D.2d 683). He had been shown the full videotape before the trial and had been sent a copy of a portion of it.
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Kunzeman, J.P., Rubin, Eiber and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.