Opinion
November 7, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Fisher, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant was charged in counts two and five of the indictment with criminal possession of cocaine with the intent to sell it. Accordingly, we find that the trial court properly admitted evidence of currency found on the defendant's person at the time of his arrest, since that testimony was relevant to the crimes charged (see, People v. Jones, 138 A.D.2d 405, lv denied 71 N.Y.2d 1028).
We note that the appropriate sanction to be imposed due to the People's failure to preserve discoverable material pursuant to CPL 240.20 rests within the sound discretion of the trial court (see, People v. Kelly, 62 N.Y.2d 516, 521; People v. Haupt, 128 A.D.2d 172, affd 71 N.Y.2d 929). Under the circumstances of this case, including the finding of no bad faith on the part of the People, the trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in giving an adverse inference charge as to certain discoverable material not preserved by the People rather than precluding all testimony as to these items, as requested by the defendant. Furthermore, the court did not err in failing to give an adverse inference charge as to the failure of the police to preserve the defendant's hat.
Contrary to the defendant's assertion, the court's interested witness charge was balanced and did not deprive him of a fair trial. The court's charge properly permitted, but did not direct, the jury to find that the defendant's brother, who had testified on the defendant's behalf, was an interested witness (see, People v. Whitmore, 123 A.D.2d 336, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 919).
We disagree with the defendant's contention, raised in his supplemental pro se brief, that the sentence imposed was excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Kunzeman, J.P., Weinstein, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.