Opinion
August 17, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Giacco, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
As properly conceded by the People, an undercover officer's written description of the defendant, recorded as he broadcast that description over the police radio, constituted Rosario material (see, People v. Wallace, 76 N.Y.2d 953, 955; People v Moss, 176 A.D.2d 826). However, the issues of whether the defendant was prejudiced by the destruction of this material and whether the People should have been sanctioned have not been preserved for appellate review since defense counsel neither raised an objection nor requested sanctions at trial (see, CPL 470.05; People v. Rogelio, 79 N.Y.2d 843; People v. Hilliard, 173 A.D.2d 559). Under the circumstances presented herein, we decline to reach the issues in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
In addition, the defendant's conduct evinced a sufficient indicia of "[s]alesman-like behavior" (People v. Roche, 45 N.Y.2d 78, 85, cert denied 439 U.S. 958) for the jury to determine that he was neither a mere extension of the undercover officer nor acting solely in the undercover officer's interest (see, People v. Andujas, 79 N.Y.2d 113; People v. Argibay, 45 N.Y.2d 45, 53, cert denied sub nom. Hahn-DiGuiseppe v. New York, 439 U.S. 930). Accordingly, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence (CPL 470.15).
The defendant's remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05) or devoid of merit (see, People v. Thomches, 172 A.D.2d 786; cf., People v. Bell, 38 N.Y.2d 116). Balletta, J.P., Miller, Pizzuto and Santucci, JJ., concur.