Opinion
November 24, 1986
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Queens County (Naro, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant correctly contends, and the People concede, that an undercover officer's identification of the defendant was improperly bolstered by another police officer (see, People v Trowbridge, 305 N.Y. 471). However, this error does not warrant reversal of the defendant's conviction. The claimed error is based upon a single unsolicited statement which merely corroborated the uncontroverted identification of the defendant. Moreover, the defense counsel's objection was sustained, the statement was stricken from the record, and the trial court gave prompt curative instructions to the jury. Therefore, and especially in view of the fact that the proof of the defendant's guilt was overwhelming, any error arising from the isolated statement was harmless (see, People v Johnson, 57 N.Y.2d 969; People v Sorgente, 90 A.D.2d 559).
The defendant's remaining contentions are similarly unavailing. The packet of cocaine which defendant sold to the undercover officer was properly admitted into evidence since there were reasonable assurances of its identity and unchanged condition (see, People v McGee, 49 N.Y.2d 48, 59, cert denied sub nom. Waters v New York, 446 U.S. 942; People v Julian, 41 N.Y.2d 340, 343-344). Under the circumstances of this case, the alleged infirmities in the chain of custody went to the weight of the real evidence and not to its admissibility (see, People v McGee, supra, at p 60; People v Julian, supra, at p 344; People v Capers, 105 A.D.2d 842).
Finally, the remaining evidentiary error raised by the defendant was not specifically objected to by the defendant and his claim with respect thereto has not been preserved for our review (CPL 470.05; People v Donovan, 59 N.Y.2d 834). In any event, under the circumstances of this case, that contention is without merit. Mollen, P.J., Brown, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.