Opinion
May 12, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County, Robert Haft, J., Brenda Soloff, J.
Defendant contends that the testimony of the detective who observed him purchase and examine the contents of a package of crack was incredible and obviously tailored to overcome constitutional objections, citing People v. Garafolo ( 44 A.D.2d 86, 88). We disagree. The hearing court's findings of fact, which are entitled to great weight (People v. Falciglia, 153 A.D.2d 795, affd 75 N.Y.2d 935), that the information provided to the detective focused his attention on the transfer between defendant and his companion, that the detective was therefore in a position to observe not only the transaction but also defendant's examination of the contents of one of the packages, and that the detective's partner did not observe the contents of the package because he was watching from the opposite side of the car, have ample support in the record (see, People v. Vaneiken, 166 A.D.2d 308).
We have considered defendant's argument that his sentence was excessive and find it to be without merit.
Concur — Rosenberger, J.P., Wallach, Ross, Asch and Kassal, JJ.