Opinion
KA 00-02217
February 1, 2002.
Appeal from a judgment of Ontario County Court (Doran, J.), entered July 7, 2000, convicting defendant after a jury trial of, inter alia, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (two counts).
ZIMMERMAN TYO, SHORTSVILLE (JOHN E. TYO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
R. MICHAEL TANTILLO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (JAMES B. RITTS OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
PRESENT: PIGOTT, JR., P.J., GREEN, HAYES, SCUDDER, AND GORSKI, JJ.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum:
We reject defendant's contention that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence ( see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490, 495). Defendant further contends that County Court erred in admitting the cocaine in evidence at trial because of a deficiency in the chain of custody. "Deficiencies in the chain of custody of property go to the weight rather than the admissibility of that evidence, as long as the requirements of proof of identity and unchanged condition are met" ( People v. Caldwell, 221 A.D.2d 972, 973, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 920; see, People v. Julian, 41 N.Y.2d 340, 343). Here, the trial testimony of the undercover police officer provided reasonable assurances that the cocaine taken from defendant was the same as that analyzed in the police laboratory ( see, People v. Julian, supra, at 343; People v. Cleveland, 273 A.D.2d 787, 788, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 864). Finally, the contention of defendant that the court erred in denying his application for new assigned counsel is without merit ( see, People v. Burgos [appeal No. 1], 291 A.D.2d 904 [decided herewith]). We have reviewed defendant's remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit.