On appeal, he first contends that County Court erred in admitting the cocaine into evidence because of certain discrepancies in the testimony of the People's witnesses concerning the consistency and color of the cocaine. The record, however, contains evidence of a sufficient unbroken chain of custody of the cocaine to provide reasonable assurance of the identity of the cocaine and its unchanged condition (see, People v Grant, 179 A.D.2d 677, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 831; People v Summers, 176 A.D.2d 905, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 864). Any minor discrepancies in the witnesses' description of the cocaine merely went to the weight to be accorded the evidence by the jury, not the admissibility of the evidence (see, People v Wynn, 176 A.D.2d 375, 377). We also reject defendant's contention that County Court erred in admitting into evidence a tape recording of the conversation between defendant and the informant during which the drug sale was alleged to have occurred.

Later, the backup officer delivered the narcotics to the police laboratory chemist, who testified that he received this evidence in an intact and sealed condition, and that the package was in the same condition at trial as it appeared following his analysis. The foregoing "provided reasonable assurances of the identity of the narcotics and of their unchanged condition" (People v. Grant, 179 A.D.2d 677, 678; see, People v. Newman, 129 A.D.2d 742). The fact that at trial, the undercover officer was initially unable to remember or see his initials on the package being admitted into evidence was not reflective of deficiencies in the chain of custody, but rather was revelant to the weight of the evidence (see, People v Connelly, 35 N.Y.2d 171, 175). The defendant's contention regarding the alleged charge error is unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05).

Accordingly, the defendant was apprised of his right to appear as a witness at the Grand Jury proceedings (see, CPL 190.50 [a]; People v. Brooks, 184 A.D.2d 518). The defendant's further contentions with respect to various rulings by the trial court are also meritless. The Sandoval ruling reveals that the court gave careful consideration to avoiding undue prejudice to the defendant and constituted a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v. Burgos, 178 A.D.2d 299; People v. Moore, 178 A.D.2d 561; People v. Vaughn, 175 A.D.2d 414). The testimony of the undercover officer who made the purchase and of the police chemist who performed the laboratory analysis provided the proper foundation for the admission of the cocaine into evidence, and any change in the condition of the cocaine was adequately explained as the result of the chemist's analysis (see, People v. Grant, 179 A.D.2d 677; People v Poulsen, 161 A.D.2d 609). Neither the testimony concerning the defendant's violent resistance to the arrest, which included the stabbing of an officer, nor the testimony concerning a yellow box which the defendant threw from his car while attempting to evade the police, constituted improper evidence of uncharged crimes (see, People v. Almonte, 177 A.D.2d 403).