Opinion
December 24, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Felig, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the People failed to disprove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was acting solely as an agent of the buyer, an undercover police officer. To be an agent of a buyer of narcotics, a defendant must be a mere extension of the buyer (see, People v. Argibay, 45 N.Y.2d 45, cert denied sub nom. Hahn-DiGuiseppe v. New York, 439 U.S. 930). Viewing the evidence in a 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. The undercover police officer testified that the defendant initiated the drug-related conversation by asking, "What are you looking for chief?" The defendant then stated that he only had "nickels," easily gained access to the apartment where the drugs were allegedly located, and sold the officer four vials of crack-cocaine. Accordingly, the jury could reasonably conclude from the defendant's actions that he was a "streetwise peddler" (People v. Scott, 134 A.D.2d 379, 380) ready to enter into a drug sale. 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 assertion that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in rendering its Sandoval ruling is without merit (see, People v. Bennette, 56 N.Y.2d 142; People v. Sandoval, 34 N.Y.2d 371). Here, the court balanced the probative worth of the defendant's prior convictions against their potential prejudice. The mere fact that some of the convictions were more than 10 years old did not, by itself, mandate preclusion of cross-examination with regard to them (see, People v. Salcedo, 133 A.D.2d 129). The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in allowing the People to inquire about eight of the defendant's prior criminal acts (see, People v. Monko, 162 A.D.2d 553; People v. Bowles, 132 A.D.2d 465).
Finally, the defendant's sentence was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Thompson, J.P., Lawrence, Kunzeman and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.