Opinion
January 31, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (James Leff, J.).
Defendant and two codefendants were arrested pursuant to a "buy-and-bust" operation. The court properly exercised its discretion in allowing the prosecutor to impeach defendant with an arrest in court several days prior to trial for possession of a hypodermic needle (People v Pavao, 59 N.Y.2d 282, 292). Having failed to object to the prosecutor's improper argument in summation that defendant's possession of the hypodermic needle provided a motive for defendant to commit the crimes charged (People v Wright, 41 N.Y.2d 172), the issue is unpreserved for appellate review. Furthermore, since counsel failed to object to the court's charge which merely addressed the limited relevance of defendant's prior conviction, and since counsel did not request a specific limiting instruction regarding the pending charge, this issue is also unpreserved (CPL 470.05). In view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt, we decline to reverse in the interest of justice.
Rebuttal testimony that prior to the charged sale, the undercover officer observed defendant exchange vials of crack with two people in exchange for money, was admissible to show defendant's intent. While the court erred in failing to caution the jurors regarding the limited purpose for which the uncharged drug sales were being admitted (People v Williams, 50 N.Y.2d 996), we find this error to be unpreserved and we decline to reach it.
Defendant's remaining arguments are either unpreserved or without merit.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Wallach, Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.