Opinion
June 8, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County, Curci, J., Heller, J.
Ordered that the judgment and the amended judgment are affirmed.
Contrary to the contention of the defendant, the People's failure to call one of two chemists who analyzed the drugs recovered was not fatal to establishing a chain of custody. The People amply demonstrated that there existed reasonable assurances of the identity and unchanged condition of the evidence (see, People v. Julian, 41 N.Y.2d 340; People v Poulsen, 161 A.D.2d 609; People v. Newman, 129 A.D.2d 742; People v. Jiminez, 100 A.D.2d 629).
Nor do we find any merit to the defendant's contention that his arrest was not predicated on probable cause. The testimony adduced at the suppression hearing established that two undercover officers saw the defendant accept money for what appeared to be a vial of crack cocaine. The personal observation of an experienced undercover officer of an exchange of a vial for currency is a telltale sign, if not the hallmark, of an illicit drug exchange (see, People v. McRay, 51 N.Y.2d 594; People v Williams, 170 A.D.2d 629).
The imposition of a sentence of imprisonment for the violation of probation under Indictment No. 11465/87 to run consecutive to the sentence imposed under Indictment No. 4881/89 was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
We have examined the contentions raised in the defendant's supplemental pro se brief and find them to be without merit. Harwood, J.P., Rosenblatt, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.