Opinion
October 22, 1990
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Kramer, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's primary argument on appeal is that the People improperly introduced evidence of a prior uncharged crime (see, People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264). However, we find that because the defendant placed the element of intent in issue by denying that he knew that he was passing narcotics to the undercover officer and by further denying that he had ever participated in a drug transaction, the admission of rebuttal evidence pertaining to an alleged earlier sale of cocaine by the defendant to another undercover officer was probative of his knowledge of the nature of the substance he passed to the undercover officer on this occasion (see, People v. Sbraccia, 92 A.D.2d 628, 629). Therefore, the evidence of the prior uncharged crime was properly admitted pursuant to the Molineux rule (see, People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233).
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, we find that the court's jury instructions with respect to the crimes charged "adequately conveyed to the jury the appropriate standards" to be applied in determining the defendant's guilt (People v Graziano, 151 A.D.2d 775, 776).
We further note that the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have examined the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J.P., Sullivan, O'Brien and Ritter, JJ., concur.