Opinion
Argued April 10, 2001.
May 7, 2001.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hall, J.), rendered March 13, 1997, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.
Sally Wasserman, New York, N.Y., for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Thomas M. Ross of counsel), for respondent.
Before: RITTER, J.P., McGINITY, H. MILLER and TOWNES, JJ.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish his guilt of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Gray, 86 N.Y.2d 10; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (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 was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The defendant's contention that he received ineffective assistance of counsel is without merit (see, People v. Benevento, 91 N.Y.2d 708; People v. Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796; People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137; People v. Wicker, 229 A.D.2d 602).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions, including those set forth in his supplemental pro se brief, are without merit.