Opinion
January 16, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Orgera, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
There is no merit to the defendant's contention that the arresting officer lacked probable cause to arrest him. The descriptions of the defendant and his codefendant transmitted by the undercover officer who made a purchase of narcotics in this so-called "buy-and-bust" operation were sufficiently detailed ( see, People v Petralia, 62 N.Y.2d 47, cert denied 469 U.S. 852; People v Pacheco, 192 A.D.2d 625; People v Landry, 187 A.D.2d 732).
The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his claim that the evidence against him was legally insufficient because the police failed to recover the pre-recorded money used by the undercover officer to purchase narcotics ( see, CPL 470.05). In any event, viewing the evidence in the 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 beyond a reasonable doubt ( see, People v Hawkins, 210 A.D.2d 504; People v Vickers, 177 A.D.2d 608). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence ( see, CPL 470.15).
Also unpreserved for appellate review is the defendant's contention that the police were improperly permitted to testify as experts without being so qualified ( see, CPL 470.05; People v Tevaha, 84 N.Y.2d 879). In any event, allowing police officers to give background testimony to explain how so-called "buy and bust" operations are conducted is proper for the purpose of assisting the jury in understanding the actions of the police which lead to a defendant's arrest, how the officers conduct the actual purchase, and why pre-recorded money is not always recovered ( see, e.g., People v Ramos, 215 A.D.2d 785; People v Hawkins, supra).
The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his claim that reversible error took place due to certain comments made by the prosecutor in her summation ( see, CPL 470.05; People v Medina, 53 N.Y.2d 951, 953). In any event, while the prosecutor's characterization of the defendant and the codefendant as "drug dealers" and her suggestion that they "had to keep their customers satisfied", thus implying an ongoing operation, were inappropriate comments, these errors were harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt ( see, People v Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230; People v Blackstock, 184 A.D.2d 775, 776). O'Brien, J.P., Sullivan, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.