Opinion
October 13, 1992
Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (John Bradley, J.).
In this "buy and bust" drug prosecution, defendant's contention that the contraband was improperly admitted into evidence because the People failed to establish a continuous unbroken chain of custody is devoid of merit. A review of the evidence adduced at trial, including the testimony and documentation offered by the People, provided the requisite "`reasonable assurances of the identity and unchanged condition'" of the heroin purchased from the defendant by the undercover officer (People v Julian, 41 N.Y.2d 340, 343; People v Mayas, 137 A.D.2d 836).
Thus, any deficiencies in the chain of custody, including the defendant's speculative arguments regarding the possible impact the original police chemist's subsequent arrest for drug possession, more than four months after he had performed a chemical analysis on the contraband, may have had upon the validity of the test results, went to the weight, and not the admissibility, of that evidence (People v White, 40 N.Y.2d 797, 799-800; People v Springer, 153 A.D.2d 959, 960). This is particularly the case, where, as here, the defendant has offered no evidence that the original chemist was impaired by drug use during his analysis of the narcotics, and where later analysis by another police chemist resulted in the same test findings.
Finally, we perceive no abuse of discretion by the court in imposing sentence (People v Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302, 305).
Concur — Ellerin, J.P., Wallach, Ross, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.