Opinion
November 14, 1995
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J.).
Defendant's challenges to the testimony of police witnesses concerning police procedures and terminology for participants in drug transactions and the targeting of areas, because of neighborhood complaints about drug trafficking, and to the prosecutor's use of this testimony in summation, are unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law, no objection having been made to either the testimony or the summation comment ( People v Graves, 85 N.Y.2d 1024). We decline to review them in the interest of justice. If we were to review them, we would find that the challenged testimony was admissible to explain why prerecorded buy money and drugs were not recovered from defendant upon his arrest ( People v Gonzalez, 180 A.D.2d 553, lv denied 79 N.Y.2d 1001; People v Applewhite, 202 A.D.2d 250, lv denied 83 N.Y.2d 868), and that the challenged comment with respect to defendant's job as a steerer was not unfair.
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.