Opinion
May 31, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Golia, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).
Further, the defendant's contention that narcotics which he had thrown to the ground while being chased by police officers were inadmissible at trial due to the People's failure to establish an adequate chain of custody is without merit. It is well settled that "a chain of custody should be tested not by the satisfaction of a technical series of steps, but by whether the proof satisfies the rationale for requiring an evidentiary foundation" (People v. Julian, 41 N.Y.2d 340, 344). Here, the police officer's testimony combined with that of the police chemist provided adequate assurances of the identity and unchanged condition of the narcotics (see, People v. Stephens, 189 A.D.2d 837; People v. Wilson, 150 A.D.2d 628, 630). Accordingly, any gap in custody between the officer's sealing of the vouchered narcotics envelope and the chemist's receipt thereof did not operate to bar the admission of the narcotics into evidence (see, People v. Stephens, supra). Further, any gap in the chain of custody or any irregularities in the notations on the evidence envelope were properly resolved by the jury in its evaluation of the weight of the evidence (see, People v. Julian, supra; People v. Stephens, supra; People v. Newman, 129 A.D.2d 742).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Copertino, J.P., Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.