Opinion
January 18, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Elbert Hinkson, J.).
In this buy and bust case, defendant's claim that the arresting officer's testimony, to the effect that the undercover officer confirmed defendant as the seller in a post-buy drive-by, constituted improper bolstering, was not preserved for review by objection, and in any event is without merit. This Court has repeatedly held that such testimony is not bolstering, but rather provides an explanation of the events that precipitated defendant's arrest ( e.g., People v Vidal, 214 A.D.2d 347, lv denied 86 N.Y.2d 785; People v Chapman, 202 A.D.2d 297, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 965; People v Rosado, 191 A.D.2d 262, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 1019; People v Velez, 189 A.D.2d 572, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 894). The arresting officer's testimony that he was looking for a person with a particular description was likewise not objected to, and in any event did not constitute bolstering but rather background information to explain why he arrived at the scene and to avoid speculation ( People v Bolling, 166 A.D.2d 203, mod on other grounds 79 N.Y.2d 317; People v Love, 92 A.D.2d 551, 553).
Defendant's claim that the trial court erred in not charging the jury that police testimony should be evaluated in the same manner as any other witness's testimony was not preserved by objection or a request to charge, and in any event is without merit since only police officers testified ( People v Miller, 159 A.D.2d 224, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 739).
We modify to vacate the convictions for possession of the crack and marijuana in the interest of justice since those drugs were the same as those sold to the undercover officer ( People v Marrero, 219 A.D.2d 518; People v Morales, 202 A.D.2d 359, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 913; People v Mesa, 195 A.D.2d 422, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 899).
We have considered defendant's remaining argument and find it to be without merit.
Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Kupferman, Ross and Williams, JJ.