Opinion
November 20, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Grajales, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that the hearing court erred by denying suppression of the drugs and the gun that were recovered from his automobile at the time of his arrest on the ground that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him (see, People v Manuli, 156 A.D.2d 388; People v Claudio, 64 N.Y.2d 858). In any event, we find no error in the hearing court's conclusion that the arresting police officer had probable cause to arrest the defendant and search his vehicle (see, People v Galak, 81 N.Y.2d 463; People v Rosario, 78 N.Y.2d 583; People v Blasich, 73 N.Y.2d 673; People v Belton, 55 N.Y.2d 49; People v Bonilla, 199 A.D.2d 519; People v Fulton, 189 A.D.2d 778).
In addition, the defendant has failed to preserve for appellate review the issue of the legal sufficiency of the evidence (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245). In any event, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it is legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v Tomlinson, 199 A.D.2d 352; People v. Jones, 186 A.D.2d 681; People v Ramos, 181 A.D.2d 837; People v Vickers, 177 A.D.2d 608). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt is not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
The sentence that was imposed is not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80).
The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit. Balletta, J.P., Ritter, Copertino and Friedmann, JJ., concur.