Opinion
February 14, 1994
Appeal from the County Court, Nassau County (Goodman, J., Winick, J.).
Ordered that the judgment and the amended judgment are affirmed.
Viewing the evidence adduced at the trial on Superior Court Information No. 75772/90 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 of both criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt on both counts was not against the weight of the evidence (see, CPL 470.15).
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, we find that the court's initial instructions to the jury with respect to the definition of "sell", regarding the criminal sale count (see, Penal Law § 220.00; § 220.39 [1]), and the definition of "intent", regarding the criminal possession count (see, Penal Law § 220.16), were proper (see, CPL 300.10; People v Canty, 60 N.Y.2d 830, 832; People v. Gardner, 59 A.D.2d 913). We also find that the court provided meaningful supplementary instructions to the jury's post-charge inquiries concerning the definitions of "intent" and "sell", when considered together with the court's overall charge on the elements of both the sale and possession counts (see, CPL 310.30; People v. Almodovar, 62 N.Y.2d 126, 131-132; People v. Malloy, 55 N.Y.2d 296, 301, cert denied 459 U.S. 847).
The defendant's remaining contentions with respect to the court's charge and supplementary instructions to the jury are either unpreserved for appellate review or without merit.
We have examined the defendant's contention with respect to the propriety of the sentences imposed and find it to be without merit (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80). Thompson, J.P., Balletta, O'Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.