Opinion
February 25, 1991
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.).
Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the conviction for criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree because there was no showing of intent to sell the narcotics seized, is not preserved for appellate review since the defendant failed to advance this argument before the trial court in support of his motion to dismiss the indictment at the close of the People's case (see, People v Hood, 156 A.D.2d 468; People v Udzinski, 146 A.D.2d 245, 250; People v Cardona, 136 A.D.2d 556). Under the circumstances of this case, we decline to review this contention in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.
Contrary to the defendant's contention, the trial court did not improvidently allow, upon its Sandoval ruling, the People to inquire into defendant's prior convictions for petit larceny and attempted burglary (see, People v Duffy, 36 N.Y.2d 258, 262-263, cert denied 423 U.S. 861; People v Wendel, 123 A.D.2d 410). Bracken, J.P., Lawrence, Rosenblatt and Ritter, JJ., concur.