Opinion
June 1, 1993
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Albert P. Williams, J.).
Contrary to defendant's argument, the evidence before the jury that defendant led the undercover officer to the apartment in question, invited her inside, obtained drugs from that apartment which were packaged in accordance with the undercover officer's response to the co-indictee's inquiry and then sold a quantity of drugs to the undercover officer, sufficiently connected defendant to the drug stash located inside that apartment to support the jury's determination that defendant acted in concert with the co-indictee to possess those drugs with intent to sell them (see, e.g., People v. McAllister, 172 A.D.2d 154, lv denied 77 N.Y.2d 997). However, defendant correctly argues that there was insufficient evidence to find him guilty of possession of the single tinfoil of cocaine recovered from the co-indictee's person, as there was no showing that defendant had any authority over the person of the co-indictee (People v. Manini, 79 N.Y.2d 561, 574-575). Thus, defendant's conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, under count two of the indictment, is vacated.
Defendant failed to object to the court's curative actions with regard to a reported jury problem, or request any further action, and thus failed to preserve any claim of error for appellate review as a matter of law (People v. Santiago, 52 N.Y.2d 865, 866). In any event, contrary to defendant's argument, there is no indication that any jurors engaged in "premature deliberations", or that the speculation of certain jurors as to what additional witnesses might be called, or whether the interpreter's translations were accurate in any way frustrated defendant's right to a fair and impartial assessment of the facts (People v Horney, 112 A.D.2d 841).
We have considered defendant's additional claims of error, and find them to be without merit.
Concur — Carro, J.P., Ellerin, Wallach, Ross and Rubin, JJ.