Opinion
March 21, 1988
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Balbach, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the People failed to prove his intent to sell the cocaine found in his possession, which is an element of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. Viewing the evidence adduced at trial 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 support the conviction. The mere fact that the evidence is subject to an interpretation different from that found by the jury does not mean the People failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Gerard, 50 N.Y.2d 392). Upon the exercise of our factual review power, we find that the verdict was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).
The defendant also contends that he was deprived of a fair trial when the prosecutor was permitted to cross-examine him about his use of aliases. Although it was improper for the trial court to have permitted such questioning (see, People v Malphurs, 111 A.D.2d 266, lv denied 66 N.Y.2d 616, 920; People v Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371), in light of the limited reference made to the defendant's aliases, the absence of any implication of criminal conduct in the manner in which the questions were posed and answered and the lack of any additional claimed errors, the error does not constitute ground for reversal (see, United States v. Grayson, 166 F.2d 863; People v. Jimenez, 79 A.D.2d 1012; cf., People v. Bannerman, 110 A.D.2d 706).
In addition, we find no basis in the record for finding that the trial court abused its discretion with respect to the sentence imposed or that this court should exercise its discretion by reducing the sentence (see, People v. Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Brown, J.P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Balletta, JJ., concur.