Opinion
December 21, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Beldock, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's objection to the trial court's permitting the arresting officer to testify concerning the possible use of two plastic strips which were found in the defendant's possession at the time of his arrest has not been preserved for appellate review. The defendant failed to take appropriate action to cure the alleged deficiency in laying a proper foundation for the subject testimony at the time when it could have been cured (see, People v Charleston, 56 N.Y.2d 886).
Contrary to the defendant's assertions, the record reveals that meaningful representation was provided (see, People v Satterfield, 66 N.Y.2d 796; People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137). Mangano, J.P., Lawrence, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.