Opinion
October 15, 1998
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Dorothy Cropper, J.).
The verdict was not against the weight of the evidence. Contrary to defendant's argument, we find the evidence of defendant's identity to be overwhelming. Defendant's claim that testimony concerning the arresting officer's recorded description of defendant's attire at the time of his arrest constituted improper bolstering is unpreserved, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt, any such error would have been harmless.
The court properly exercised its discretion by limiting speculative cross-examination of the officers regarding insufficiently related drug sales ( see, People v. Hudy, 73 N.Y.2d 40, 56; People v. Gonzalez, 189 A.D.2d 701, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 971).
We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Rosenberger, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.