Opinion
June 30, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Bronx County (John E.H. Stackhouse, J.).
The People's witnesses at trial testified that defendant sold two vials of crack cocaine to an undercover narcotics officer, was observed at close range by the arresting officer making two additional sales of one and two vials of crack cocaine, respectively, to apprehended purchasers, and was found to be in possession of one additional vial of crack cocaine upon arrest. Viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the People and giving them the benefit of every reasonable inference (People v. Malizia, 62 N.Y.2d 755, cert denied 469 U.S. 932), defendant's guilt of the crimes charged was proved by overwhelming evidence (see, People v. Bleakley, 69 N.Y.2d 490). Contrary to defendant's argument on appeal, there were no significant inconsistencies in the testimony of the police officers, and his claim that the officers arrested defendant merely to enhance their promotional opportunities is without any factual basis. The jury's determination to credit the police testimony regarding defendant's activities at the time in question and to reject defendant's testimony thereon is entirely reasonable and will not be disturbed by this court (see, People v. Fonte, 159 A.D.2d 346, lv denied 76 N.Y.2d 734).
As counts 4, 5 and 6 of the indictment, charging criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, stem directly from charges for criminal sale of a controlled substance, dismissal is warranted in the interest of justice (see, e.g., People v. Medina, 171 A.D.2d 559, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 924).
A review of the record indicates that the sentencing court inadvertently omitted to pronounce sentence on defendant's conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, and thus the matter is remanded for pronouncement of sentence thereon (CPL 380.20).
Concur — Milonas, J.P., Wallach, Kupferman and Smith, JJ.