Opinion
January 11, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant contends that the trial court erred in admitting testimony concerning uncharged drug sales, which occurred immediately before and after his commission of the indicted offense. We disagree. It is well established that evidence of uncharged crimes is admissible on the issue of the defendant's intent (see, People v. Alvino, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 245; People v Hernandez, 71 N.Y.2d 233, 245; People v. Wheeler, 140 A.D.2d 731; People v. Bristow, 106 A.D.2d 510). We conclude that the admission of the uncharged drug sales was proper to prove that the defendant intended to sell the 18 vials of crack-cocaine retrieved at the time of his arrest (see, People v. Silva, 187 A.D.2d 467; People v. Green, 170 A.D.2d 530). Moreover, the court's limiting instructions served to prevent any possible prejudice resulting from the admission of that evidence.
The defendant's contention that the court erred in curtailing the cross-examination of a police officer is without merit. It is well established that the trial court has broad discretion to curtail exploration of collateral matters on cross-examination (see, People v. Diaz, 173 A.D.2d 554). Here, it cannot be said that the trial court improvidently exercised that discretion.
The defendant's remaining contention concerning the court's charge is unpreserved for appellate review and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Balletta, J.P., Eiber, O'Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.