Opinion
March 30, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Quinones, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the People failed to present reasonable assurances as to the identity and unchanged condition of the vials of cocaine bought from him by the undercover officer and seized from him following his arrest is without merit. The evidence at trial clearly established that at all times after the vials were recovered from the defendant's person they "remained safely under police control" and thus provided "reasonable assurances of the identity and unchanged condition" of the evidence (People v Julian, 41 N.Y.2d 340, 343; People v Williams, 170 A.D.2d 629; People v Poulsen, 161 A.D.2d 609). Contrary to the defendant's argument, any deficiencies in the chain of custody did not bar the admission of the vials into evidence, but rather only involved the weight to be accorded to that evidence (People v Julian, supra, at 344; People v Donovan, 141 A.D.2d 835).
The defendant's claim that one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree should now be dismissed as a non-inclusory concurrent offense is unpreserved for appellate review since he failed to object to the court's submission of this count to the jury (see, People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245; People v Williams, 47 A.D.2d 262).
A fair reading of the sentence minutes does not support the defendant's contention that the sentencing court improperly took into consideration past uncharged crimes in imposing sentence (People v Restrepo, 165 A.D.2d 838; People v Villanueva, 144 A.D.2d 285). Moreover, we conclude that the sentence imposed was not unduly harsh or excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Harwood, J.P., Eiber, Ritter and Copertino, JJ., concur.