Opinion
September 29, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Lawrence Tonetti, J.).
Defendant failed to preserve his various claims of error regarding the admission of evidence of uncharged contemporaneous drug sales and we decline to review them in the interest of justice ( People v. Roldan, 238 A.D.2d 255, lv denied 90 N.Y.2d 863). Were we to review them, we would find no error since the evidence in question was highly probative of the charge of possession with intent to sell, and was admissible to prove the contested issue of identity, to complete the narrative, and to explain why the police targeted defendant ( see, People v. Ramos, 220 A.D.2d 330, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 976). Contrary to defendant's current position, "the prosecution is not bound to rest after presenting the minimum of evidence supporting its prima facie case" ( People v. Marrero, 191 A.D.2d 289, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 973).
Concur — Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Ellerin, Wallach and Williams, JJ.