Opinion
May 9, 1996
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Collins, J.).
None of defendant's numerous claims of error by the trial court warrant disturbing the judgment. The photograph of defendant and the codefendant together, taken at the precinct on the date of the arrest, was admissible to establish their appearance on the date of the arrest ( People v. Logan, 25 N.Y.2d 184, 195-196, cert denied 396 U.S. 1020; People v. Larry, 178 A.D.2d 282, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1003), and did not bolster the prosecution's theory that they were acting in concert selling drugs earlier that day.
The expert testimony on the various roles of the participants in street-level narcotics sales, including how their roles may change, was admissible to explain the absence of buy money ( People v. Rivera, 209 A.D.2d 151, lv denied 84 N.Y.2d 1037). The testimony did exceed its appropriate limits by referring to "managers", security people who are "usually armed" and a "vicinity" of operations, those terms implying a large-scale drug operation ( People v. Hibbert, 215 A.D.2d 140; see, People v Negron, 136 A.D.2d 523), but defendant did not preserve this claim by specific objection, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Although defendant did object to the expert testimony concerning "stash", any error in the admission of such testimony was harmless ( People v. Crimmins, 36 N.Y.2d 230).
The trial court's Sandoval ruling, permitting inquiry into the fact that defendant had been convicted of four felonies and six misdemeanors, was a proper exercise of discretion ( see, People v. Walker, 83 N.Y.2d 455, 459; People v. Ellis, 183 A.D.2d 534, 535, affd 81 N.Y.2d 854; cf., People v. Bowles, 132 A.D.2d 465, lv denied 70 N.Y.2d 798), notwithstanding the number of convictions, the fact that these convictions constituted defendant's entire record, and the fact that some of the convictions were more than 10 years old ( see, People v. Walker, 189 A.D.2d 620, affd 83 N.Y.2d 455, supra), where the prosecutor was precluded from inquiry as to the underlying facts of such crimes or even identifying them.
Defendant's complaint concerning the court's constructive possession charge is unpreserved for appellate review, defendant having failed to object to the charge, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find that the charge, as a whole, conveyed the correct standard to the jury ( see, People v. Fields, 87 N.Y.2d 821, 823).
We perceive no abuse of discretion in sentencing.
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Wallach, Rubin, Kupferman and Mazzarelli, JJ.